Skip to content

Sunday News Round-Up, Early Morning Tornado Siren Edition

May 2, 2010

Yikes – here in Nashville we’ve had some intense weather this weekend. I mean, it’s not every day that a portable classroom floats down the interstate.

First, check out all of the great posts that were part of Blogging Against Disablism Day. Or maybe do that last, because you will be there for a while. I haven’t read them all, but one post I particularly liked was on the scrutiny of people who need painkilling medications.

Info on the Children’s/Infants’ Tylenol, C/I Motrin, and children’s Zyrtec and Benadryl is online at

SB 529, the “OB/GYN Criminalization and Racial Discrimination Act” in Georgia (on race and abortion), was killed in committee. SisterSong has a press release [PDF] and Jodi Jacobson has a summary at RHRC.

Also at RHRC, Aimée Thorne-Thomsen writes about abortion: “Safe – yes. Legal– absolutely. Rare – not the point.

Melissa Garvey at Midwife Connection (ACNM) explains her enthusiasm for having nitrous oxide as a labor pain relief strategy as a choice issue.

At The Unnecesarean, they’re reviewing a VBAC consent form in the comments, giving a provider feedback on what is clear, what is confusing, and additional information they would like to see. I think this is an excellent idea that could easily be extended to other types of consent forms and documents healthcare consumers must sign, using online patient advocacy and participatory medicine/epatient communities. Taneya, want to do a crowdsourced consent form literacy project with me?

Academic Ob/gyn has a post on a recently retracted ACOG practice bulletin, raising one problem with the shift from print to online research journals: “A few weeks after publication ACOG retracted the Practice Bulletin. Though we don’t know for sure, this was likely due to an outcry the many MFMs who don’t agree with the published recommendations. As of now, it is no longer available online, and exists only in the pages of the printed journal.” I love online journals. They make my life easier and even *more interesting* (nerdalert). I think, though, that when publications are retracted or updated, the providers of the online versions should mark those as such but preserve the content. I’ve run into this before with ACOG, when an updated bulletin or guideline was issued and I no longer had access to the old version for comparison. This is a problem of what the providers agree to and the policies of the organizations/editors – not of the journals being online – but it’s one that I think needs addressing because it’s too easy for this online content to become unavailable.

AHRQ has posted a Health Literacy Universal Precautions Toolkit, intended for healthcare providers to use in increasing their understanding of and improving their practices related to health literacy. It would be cooler if the “health literacy resources in the community” section explicitly mentioned libraries.

Headlines I don’t like: WHO: Gonorrhea Could Become Untreatable – “Gonorrhea may soon become untreatable, due in large part to the misuse of the antibiotics currently used against the sexually transmitted disease, the World Health Organization warned Thursday.”

The National Library of Medicine has posted resource on Crude Oil Spills and Human Health.

The Oklahoma legislature overturned the Governor’s veto of a bill requiring ultrasound for abortion and another preventing lawsuits against doctors who lie to women about fetal health when the truth might influence their decision to choose abortion. The Center for Reproductive Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging the ultrasound requirement. In Kansas, the state House failed to overturn the Governor’s veto of a bill prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks based on an unsupported idea about fetal pain. A New York Times columnist reviews restrictive bills around the country, including these states, Florida, and Nebraska.

Finally, Frontline aired “The Vaccine War,” on vaccine safety and anti-vax arguments. ScienceBlogs has a number of posts on the show, including this one at Respectful Insolence. Science-Based Medicine also has a detailed review.

7 Comments leave one →
  1. May 2, 2010 8:38 am

    Thanks for the link, Rachel. 🙂

    • May 4, 2010 8:47 am

      You’re welcome – I think that post was a great idea!

  2. May 3, 2010 5:06 pm

    let’s talk 🙂

  3. May 4, 2010 12:19 am

    A lot has been written about the Oklahoma abortion/ultrasound law. I agree that it’s reprehensible.

    But why is no one talking about the fact that Oklahoma doctors can (are encouraged to?) lie to their patients about their babies’ well-being? Whether or not physicians actually do this, the doctor-patient relationship is eroded just by saying that they have the option. How can a pregnant woman in Olkahoma trust that her doctor will tell her the truth?

    Yay for the paternalistic legislators. Woman-as-incubator has reached a new low in Oklahoma.

    • May 4, 2010 8:48 am

      You’re right – that is definitely an aspect I and others have not focused on as much, and it is horrible.

  4. May 6, 2010 7:35 am

    Doctors should not decide this, they always should tell the truth, parents are entitled to that

  5. May 27, 2010 3:36 pm

    Just watched the classroom floating down the intersection video — that is one of the craziest videos I’ve ever seen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: