Hot Topics: Medical Humanities
by Craig Klugman, Ph.D.
Doc• splain (/’däk splān) verb. Informal. (of an MD) explaining (something) to someone, typically a PhD, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing
At the 2018 Meeting of the American Society for Bioethics & Humanities, we were treated to two excellent plenary sessions: Jonathan Metzl on gun violence and Despina Kakoudaki on Frankenstein.…Full Article
by Keisha Ray, Ph.D.
“Nothing about us without us.”– J.I. Charlton, adopted by disability rights advocates
Recently I sat in a room of scholars who teach health humanities in medical schools and undergraduate institutions across the United States and Canada.…Full Article
by Eric S. Swirsky, JD, MA
It is my privilege to introduce the health humanities community to the work of biomedical visualization students at the University of Illinois at Chicago, whose work will be featured as cover art in forthcoming issues of AJOB. …Full Article
by Craig Klugman, Ph.D.
This year has been a challenging one in the debate over what a U.S. health care system should look like.…Full Article
Intersectionality in Clinical Medicine: The Need for a Conceptual Framework
Shrinking Poor White Life Spans: Class, Race, and Health Justice
A paradigm for understanding trust and mistrust in medical research: The Community VOICES study
Now is the Time for a Postracial Medicine: Biomedical Research, the National Institutes of Health, and the Perpetuation of Scientific Racism
Healing Without Waging War: Beyond Military Metaphors in Medicine and HIV Cure Research
WASHINGTON — Pound for pound, the deadliest arms of all time are not nuclear but biological. A single gallon of anthrax, if suitably distributed, could end human life on Earth.
Even so, the Trump administration has given scant attention to North Korea’s pursuit of living weapons — a threat that analysts describe as more immediate than its nuclear arms, which Pyongyang and Washington have been discussing for more than six months.Full Article
Ever since scientists created the powerful gene-editing technique CRISPR, they have braced for the day when it would be used to produce a genetically altered human being. Now, the moment they feared may have come. What’s likely to happen next?Full Article
All over the country, specialized strike teams of doctors are giving hope to families who are desperately searching for a diagnosis.
The medical sleuths have cracked more than a third of the 382 patient cases they’re pursuing, according to a recent paper in the New England Journal of Medicine.Full Article
We have long understood, however, that the robustness of the biomedical research enterprise is under constant threat by risks to the security of intellectual property and the integrity of peer review. This knowledge has shaped our existing policies and practices, but these risks are increasing.Full Article
In recent years, however, this practice of appraising researchers by counting their publications has become problematic. This is because an astonishing number of journals that bill themselves as “peer-reviewed” do not, in fact, take the trouble to be so. A tally of journals that an American analytics firm, Cabells, believes to falsely claim to peer-review submissions, amounted, on a recent day, to 8,699—more than double the number of a year ago. A blacklist compiled by other experts is even longer.Full Article
In 1942, the anthropologist Ashley Montagu published “Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race,” an influential book that argued that race is a social concept with no genetic basis. A classic example often cited is the inconsistent definition of “black.” In the United States, historically, a person is “black” if he has any sub-Saharan African ancestry; in Brazil, a person is not “black” if he is known to have any European ancestry. If “black” refers to different people in different contexts, how can there be any genetic basis to it?Full Article
Four former heads of the Food and Drug Administration have issued a joint statement opposing “right to try” legislation that is designed to permit desperately sick patients to get experimental treatments without the approval of the agency.Full Article
A new study published in Journal of Medical Ethics by van der Zande et al1 further highlights why classifying pregnant women as a ‘vulnerable population’ in the context of research is deeply problematic. Because the designation of ‘vulnerable’ is otherwise applied to populations whose decision-making capacity about research participation is somehow compromised—such as children and adults of limited cognitive ability—many of us have been arguing for some time that using this designation for pregnant women is inappropriate and disrespectful.Full Article