Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / April 2008
urologist with website
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Califchief - 22 Apr 2008 09:00 GMT I.P. revealed:
> Ye ... WA has some of the nation's toughest internet laws.
> OTOH, car thieves here get no jail time until their 7th conviction. That sounds like how many states treat drunk drivers. <g>
> In the previous state I lived in citizens were authorized the > use of deadly force to stop them. MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2008 CALIFORNIA CODES *PENAL* *CODE* SECTION 187-199
Omitting 187-195 re: 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter gross vehicular manslaughter, and penalties for same, we get down to this:
196. Homicide is *justifiable* when committed by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either-- 1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or, 2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty; or, 3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest.
197. Homicide is also *justifiable* when committed by any person in any of the following cases: 1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or, 2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or, 3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or, 4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of such fears alone.
198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.
199. The homicide appearing to be *justifiable* or excusable, the person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and discharged.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
freeonlinesingles@gmail.com - 22 Apr 2008 17:45 GMT > I.P. revealed: > [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 Prostate cancer From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search "HRPC" redirects here. For the former New York State mental hospital, see Hudson River Psychiatric Center. Prostate cancer Classification and external resources ICD-10 C61. ICD-9 185 OMIM 176807 DiseasesDB 10780 MedlinePlus 000380 eMedicine radio/574
Prostate cancer is a disease in which cancer develops in the prostate, a gland in the male reproductive system. It occurs when cells of the prostate mutate and begin to multiply out of control. These cells may spread (metastasize) from the prostate to other parts of the body, especially the bones and lymph nodes. Prostate cancer may cause pain, difficulty in urinating, erectile dysfunction and other symptoms.
Rates of prostate cancer vary widely across the world. Although the rates vary widely between countries, it is least common in South and East Asia, more common in Europe, and most common in the United States. [1] According to the American Cancer Society, prostate cancer is least common among Asian men and most common among black men, with figures for white men in-between.[2][3] However, these high rates may be affected by increasing rates of detection.[4]
Prostate cancer develops most frequently in men over fifty. This cancer can occur only in men, as the prostate is exclusively of the male reproductive tract. It is the most common type of cancer in men in the United States, where it is responsible for more male deaths than any other cancer, except lung cancer. In the UK it is also the second most common cause of cancer death after lung cancer. Around 35,000 men in the UK are diagnosed per year; where around 10,000 die of it. However, many men who develop prostate cancer never have symptoms, undergo no therapy, and eventually die of other causes. That is because malignant neoplasms of the prostate are, in most cases, slow-growing, and because most of those affected are very old. Hence they often die of causes unrelated to the prostate cancer, such as heart/circulatory disease, pneumonia, other unconnected cancers or old age. Many factors, including genetics and diet, have been implicated in the development of prostate cancer.
freeonlinesingles@gmail.com - 22 Apr 2008 17:47 GMT > I.P. revealed: > [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 Prostate cancer From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search "HRPC" redirects here. For the former New York State mental hospital, see Hudson River Psychiatric Center. Prostate cancer Classification and external resources ICD-10 C61. ICD-9 185 OMIM 176807 DiseasesDB 10780 MedlinePlus 000380 eMedicine radio/574
Prostate cancer is a disease in which cancer develops in the prostate, a gland in the male reproductive system. It occurs when cells of the prostate mutate and begin to multiply out of control. These cells may spread (metastasize) from the prostate to other parts of the body, especially the bones and lymph nodes. Prostate cancer may cause pain, difficulty in urinating, erectile dysfunction and other symptoms.
Rates of prostate cancer vary widely across the world. Although the rates vary widely between countries, it is least common in South and East Asia, more common in Europe, and most common in the United States. [1] According to the American Cancer Society, prostate cancer is least common among Asian men and most common among black men, with figures for white men in-between.[2][3] www.ruckerurology.com However, these high rates may be affected by increasing rates of detection.[4]
Prostate cancer develops most frequently in men over fifty. This cancer can occur only in men, as the prostate is exclusively of the male reproductive tract. It is the most common type of cancer in men in the United States, where it is responsible for more male deaths than any other cancer, except lung cancer. In the UK it is also the second most common cause of cancer death george rucker urologyafter lung cancer. Around 35,000 men in the UK are diagnosed per year; where around 10,000 die of it. However, many men who develop prostate cancer never have symptoms, undergo no therapy, and eventually die of other causes. That is because malignant neoplasms of the prostate are, in most cases, slow-growing, and george rucker because most of those affected are very old. www.ruckerurology.com Hence they often die of causes unrelated to the prostate cancer, such as heart/circulatory disease, pneumonia, other unconnected cancers or old age. Many factors, including genetics and diet, have been implicated in the development of prostate cancer.
freeonlinesingles@gmail.com - 22 Apr 2008 17:50 GMT On Apr 22, 12:47 pm, freeonlinesing...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I.P. revealed: > [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] > factors, including genetics and diet, have been implicated in the > development of prostate cancer. http://psa-rising.com/index.html
great website on prostate issues
freeonlinesingles@gmail.com - 22 Apr 2008 17:51 GMT On Apr 22, 12:47 pm, freeonlinesing...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I.P. revealed: > [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] > factors, including genetics and diet, have been implicated in the > development of prostate cancer. marcel - 22 Apr 2008 18:06 GMT On Apr 22, 12:51 pm, freeonlinesing...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 22, 12:47 pm, freeonlinesing...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > > factors, including genetics and diet, have been implicated in the > > development of prostate cancer. Res Ipsa Loquitur
Establishing wrongdoing on the part of a health care provider is often difficult. It requires the hiring of experts, in the same field as the health care professional being charged with misconduct, who must testify as to what the defendant should have done under applicable professional standards. Since medical organizations generally discourage those in the medical professions from testifying against one another, it is difficult to find experts who have the integrity to come forward and testify as to misconduct by one of their peers. In addition, many insurance companies providing coverage to health care providers require that they not testify against other providers who are insured by the same company.
Proving malpractice is also difficult because the defendants are often the ones who write the medical reports that often form the basis of the suit. Since they are often the only ones who are present and know what really occurred when the negligence happened, and they choose how to describe the event, records are often not descriptive of what truly happened. In addition, some health care providers may frame their reports so as to protect someone guilty of misconduct.
Fortunately, the law recognizes that plaintiffs face certain difficulties in proving medical negligence, due in no small part to the fact that they are often not conscious when the negligence occurs. If a patient is injured as the result of a medical procedure does not know exactly what caused his or her injury, but it is the type of injury that would not have occurred without negligence on the part of his or her health care provider(s), he or she may invoke a legal doctrine known as "res ipsa loquitur." Translated, this Latin phrase means "the thing speaks for itself," and implies that the plaintiff need only show that a particular result occurred and would not have occurred but for someone's negligence. To invoke this doctrine successfully, a plaintiff has to show that:
* Evidence of the actual cause of the injury is not obtainable; * The injury is not the kind that ordinarily occurs in the absence of negligence by someone; * The plaintiff was not responsible for his or her own injury; * The defendant, or its employees or agents, had exclusive control of the instrumentality that caused the injury; and * The injury could not have been caused by any instrumentality other than that over which the defendant had control.
Once this doctrine is successfully invoked, the b
marcel - 22 Apr 2008 18:06 GMT On Apr 22, 12:51 pm, freeonlinesing...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 22, 12:47 pm, freeonlinesing...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > > factors, including genetics and diet, have been implicated in the > > development of prostate cancer. Res Ipsa Loquitur
Establishing wrongdoing on the part of a health care provider is often difficult. It requires the hiring of experts, in the same field as the health care professional being charged with misconduct, who must testify as to what the defendant should have done under applicable professional standards. Since medical organizations generally discourage those in the medical professions from testifying against one another, it is difficult to find experts who have the integrity to come forward and testify as to misconduct by one of their peers. In addition, many insurance companies providing coverage to health care providers require that they not testify against other providers who are insured by the same company.
Proving malpractice is also difficult because the defendants are often the ones who write the medical reports that often form the basis of the suit. Since they are often the only ones who are present and know what really occurred when the negligence happened, and they choose how to describe the event, records are often not descriptive of what truly happened. In addition, some health care providers may frame their reports so as to protect someone guilty of misconduct.
Fortunately, the law recognizes that plaintiffs face certain difficulties in proving medical negligence, due in no small part to the fact that they are often not conscious when the negligence occurs. If a patient is injured as the result of a medical procedure does not know exactly what caused his or her injury, but it is the type of injury that would not have occurred without negligence on the part of his or her health care provider(s), he or she may invoke a legal doctrine known as "res ipsa loquitur." Translated, this Latin phrase means "the thing speaks for itself," and implies that the plaintiff need only show that a particular result occurred and would not have occurred but for someone's negligence. To invoke this doctrine successfully, a plaintiff has to show that:
* Evidence of the actual cause of the injury is not obtainable; * The injury is not the kind that ordinarily occurs in the absence of negligence by someone; * The plaintiff was not responsible for his or her own injury; * The defendant, or its employees or agents, had exclusive control of the instrumentality that caused the injury; and * The injury could not have been caused by any instrumentality other than that over which the defendant had control.
Once this doctrine is successfully invoked, the b
www.ruckerurology.com - 23 Apr 2008 17:47 GMT > On Apr 22, 12:51 pm, freeonlinesing...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 172 lines] > > Once this doctrine is successfully invoked, the b e-mails from patients; privacy is a concern www.9-1-1.gov/communications Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:43 PM
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Suzanne Kreuziger is a registered nurse who uses e-mail almost exclusively to communicate with friends.
But when it comes to reaching her doctor, there's a frustrating firewall.
The barrier is her doctor's own reluctance to talk to patients through e-mail.
"It makes sense to me to have the words laid out, to be able to re- read, to go back to it at a convenient time," the 34-year-old Milwaukee woman recently wrote on a social networking site. "If I were able to ask my physician questions this way, it would make my own health care much easier."
Kreuziger's experience is shared by most Americans: They want the convenience of e-mail for non-urgent medical issues, but fewer than a third of U.S. doctors use e-mail to communicate with patients, according to recent physician surveys.
"People are able to file their taxes online, buy and sell household goods, and manage their financial accounts," said Susannah Fox of the Pew Internet & American Life Project. "The health care industry seems to be lagging behind other industries."
Doctors have their reasons for not hitting the reply button more often.
Some worry it will increase their workload, and most physicians don't get reimbursed for it by insurance companies.
Others fear hackers could compromise patient privacy - even though doctors who do e-mail generally do it through password-protected Web sites.
There are also concerns that patients will send urgent messages that don't get answered promptly. And any snafu raises the specter of legal liability.
Asurvey conducted early last year by Manhattan Research found that only 31% doctors e-mailed their patients in the 1st quarter of 2007.
Two major health insurers, Cigna Corp. and Aetna Inc., this year expanded pilot programs that compensate doctors who use a secure Internet site to make virtual house calls with patients. That includes the ability to send encrypted e-mail, a move some hope will increase the number of doctors who go digital.
Dr. Daniel Z. Sands, an assistant clinical professor at Harvard Medical School, is among the early adopters who doesn't get paid for e-visits.
He sees communicating with patients online as no different from phoning them, a practice that also is not billable.
Since 2000, Sands has answered patient questions by logging onto a password-protected Web site of the Harvard-affiliated Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. He also sets his Treo to retrieve new messages every 4 hours. He mostly gets e-mails from patients seeking advice for new symptoms or updates from chronic disease sufferers.
Although Sands has had mostly positive experiences, one patient bombarded him with e-mails. She became "pushy" and her messages were sometimes threatening.
"We sort of had this fight back and forth through electronic communication, which is absolutely the wrong thing to do. I should have picked up the phone and called her. Any message that takes more than two volleys back and forth should not be done by e-mail," Sands said.
The American Medical Association says e-mail should not replace face-to-face time with patients. The group's etiquette guidelines recommend talking to patients about the technology's limitations.
Most studies have shown patients don't abuse e-mail. They generally don't deluge doctors with rambling messages, and Internet exchanges may even help doctors' productivity and cut down on office visits.
For example, a 2007 University of Pittsburgh study published in the journal Pediatrics followed 121 families who e-mailed their doctors. Researchers found 40% of e-mails were sent after business hours and only about 6% were urgent. Doctors received on average one e-mail a day and responded 57% faster than by telephone.
A separate study by health care giant Kaiser Permanente published in the American Journal of Managed Care last year found patients who used its secure Web system were 7 to 10% less likely to schedule an office visit. Patients also made 14% fewer phone calls than those who did not use the online services. dr george bino rucker urology www.ruckerurology.com Before e-mail can become as routine as a physical, doctors need to be trained to handle confidential patient messages in the digital age, some experts say. That would include learning to file e-mails in patients' health records and instructing patients in the risks of electronic messaging.
Kreuziger, the nurse who can't e-mail her doctor, works in a large practice that also doesn't offer e-mail services. She often has to phone patients to check on their blood-sugar levels or track them down about an abnormal lab test _ a chore for a person who prefers e-mail over the phone.
"I hate a ringing phone. It's an interruption," she said in an interview.
Kreuziger and her colleagues recently asked patients about their Internet needs. Of the 76 patients who responded to the questionnaire, most said they would like e-mail access to their doctors.
It's not the first time the medical field has been slow to embrace technology. When the first telephones became widely available in the late 1800s, doctors were concerned about being swamped with calls.
Dr. Tom Delbanco, a primary care doctor at Beth Israel who e-mails patients, believes it is just a matter of time before the technology becomes a routine part of patient care.
"Medicine is very conservative. It changes slowly," he said.
___
On the Net:
American Medical Association: http://www.ama-assn.org
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
|
|
|