Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / April 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

urologist with website

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.