Communicating risk: Does scientific debate compromise safety?
نویسندگان
چکیده
A recent publication in the influential British Medical Journal (BMJ) using the Danish National Registry databases reported an increased risk of venous thrombosis (VT) in women using the combination contraceptive ring and patch, and suggested that the risk may also be increased among users of the etonogestrel implant [1]. While an increased risk of VT is well established for women using combined hormonal methods, in this database study, users of the ring and patch were noted to have double the risk of VT compared to users of a low-dose levonorgestrel (LNG) pill. In 2009, the same research group using similar methodology reported a twofold increase in VT risk among users of drospirenone-containing combined oral contraceptives (OCs) relative to LNG pills [2]. This created a ripple effect that bounced off our shores and led to FDA hearings that resulted in media attention and a change in labeling for these products. How should we communicate this new information about the ring and patch to patients and other health care providers? Scientific debate is messy but ultimately healthy for patient care. Unfortunately, the medical literature has rapidly moved from an exclusive currency of scientific exchange and clinical advancement used by researchers and clinicians to a source for the lead story on the evening news or as ammunition for litigation. Before most clinicians have a chance to read and discuss an important new manuscript, the results are on the front page of daily papers and on electronic blogs. Chances are your first office patient read the report on her iPhone while you were still finishing morning rounds. The communication of risk and benefit is a core component of health care counseling. One of the most
منابع مشابه
A NEW APPROACH IN FAILURE MODES AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS BASED ON COMPROMISE SOLUTION BY CONSIDERING OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE WEIGHTS WITH INTERVAL-VALUED INTUITIONISTIC FUZZY SETS
Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) is a well-known risk analysis approach that has been conducted to distinguish, analyze and mitigate serious failure modes. It demonstrates the effectiveness and the ability of understanding and documenting in a clear manner; however, the FMEA has weak points and it has been criticized by some authors. For example, it does not consider relative importanc...
متن کاملThe Debate Over Compromise and the Goals of the Judicial Process
Talmudic literature documents a sharp debate among the tannaim regarding the legitimacy of the process of compromise or, to be more precise, of the process of bitsu‘a. This dispute appears in a well-known passage in Tosefta Sanhedrin, chapter 1, and in both Talmuds (y.Sanh. 1:1 [18b], b.Sanh. 6b), and is also mentioned briefly in Sifre Deuteronomy §17. Even upon first glance it can be seen that...
متن کاملEthics of Communicating Scientific Findings of Autism Risk CONFERENCE MATERIALS Ethics of Communicating Scientific Findings of Autism Risk CASES
متن کامل
The real and perceived risks of genetically modified organisms.
The debate about the various risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has been with us for almost a lifetime, ever since a voluntary moratorium on some recombinant DNA research was declared in Asilomar, California, in 1975. Whereas the original concerns centred on the risks of GM technology in general, in recent years it has shifted to GM crops and food. Whenever an application to release...
متن کاملClinical Translation of Tissue Engineered Medicinal Products
Tissue Engineering is a rapidly growing field with novel scientific concepts, new technological methods, and evolving regulatory policies for clinical translation. Most of the current basic regulations are taken from the pharma, bio-pharma, cell therapy with little modifications, and new inclusion for development of regulatory frame work for advanced therapeutic products. We propose to highligh...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
- Contraception
دوره 86 4 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2012