<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: ambiguous</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'ambiguous'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22ambiguous%22&t=%22ambiguous%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 03:35:25 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>When Prescription Directions Are Unclear</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4676792&amp;cid=t_421584_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fwhen-prescription-directions-are-unclear%2F2011.04.03</link>
            <description>“Take one to two pain pills by mouth every 4 to six hours”
To me that is clear.  I was reminded recently that it isn’t to all patients.
A patient complained of lack of relief from her pain medicines after surgery.  Her description of the pain didn’t suggest any complications so I ask how she was taking them.  I was looking for a way to safely use NSAIDS or Tylenol as a boost rather than giving her something stronger.
“I take one pain pill and then wait an hour to take another one.”
I prompted her to tell me when she took the next dose.
“I wait four hours and then take one pain pill, but I wait for six hours to take the next one.”
Ah!
I had mentioned to her and her caregiver that due to her small size she should begin with just one, then wait for 30 minutes to an hour to ...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4676792</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 03 Apr 2011 18:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4676792</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Are We Rational Animals?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4419197&amp;cid=t_421584_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2011%2F01%2F31%2Fare-we-rational-animals%2F</link>
            <description>Aristotle held the belief that man is a rational animal. A growing body of research suggests otherwise.
Rational: of or based on reasoning (from Webster’s New World Dictionary).  This ambiguous definition is similar to what is given by many people when asked to define rational.  This type of definition is virtually worthless as it becomes open to a plethora of interpretations.  In order to teach and express the importance of rational thinking it is imperative to precisely define the concept.
What is rationality?
Rationality is concerned with two key things: what is true and what to do (Manktelow, 2004).  In order for our beliefs to be rational they must be in agreement with evidence.  In order for our actions to be rational they must be conducive to obtaining our goals.

Cognitive s...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4419197</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:52:16 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4419197</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Odd Side Effects: Reduces Homosexuality</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3872600&amp;cid=t_421584_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2010%2F08%2F16%2Fodd-side-effects-reduces-homosexuality%2F</link>
            <description>A particular kind of hormone treatment therapy to treat a rare birth defect is getting unwanted attention for one of its possible side effects &amp;#8212; reducing the likelihood that the baby will be homosexual. The treatment is used to prevent genital abnormalities in the baby.
Normally, of course, such treatment would be unremarkable and nobody would much care. But some gay and lesbian groups seem to be outraged by this treatment, and want to turn a medical decision and medical issue into a political one.
Should such medical therapies be regulated by the government? Or should they be left to the judgment of the patient and the doctor?

A hormonal treatment to prevent ambiguous genitalia can now be offered to women who may be carrying such infants. It&amp;#8217;s not without health risks, but to...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3872600</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:05:29 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3872600</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Prenatal steroid treatment of ambiguous sex organs</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2160434&amp;cid=t_421584_131_f&amp;fid=34989&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.b5media.com%2F%7Er%2Fb5media%2FGeneticsHealth%2F%7E3%2FkI1uestkEx0%2F</link>
            <description>It is awfully heartbreaking when the doctor can’t tell if you gave birth to a boy or a girl. 
Sex organs develop early in the fetus such that the baby’s sex can be determined as early as 19-20 weeks in the womb. Unfortunately, the sex organs of about 1 in 15,000 births could be difficult to determine prenatally or at birth. In such babies, a defective gene is the likely culprit. 
Congenital adrenal hyperplasia, or CAH refers to autosomal recessive diseases where the adrenal glands fail to produce sufficient amounts of hormones known as cortisol. Mutations are found in genes for one or more enzymes producing the hormone cortisol, resulting in irregular production of sex steroids. The most common type of CAH produces ambiguous genitalia in genetically female (XX) fetuses. 
In these femal...</description>
            <author>Genetics and Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2160434</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:24:14 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2160434</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Sexism: The Worst Part Is Not Knowing</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1786252&amp;cid=t_421584_109_f&amp;fid=36089&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fthesituationist.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F09%2F12%2Fsexism-the-worst-part-is-not-knowing%2F</link>
            <description>From New Scientist (&amp;#8221;Chauvinists Less Unnerving than Ambiguous Men&amp;#8220;).
* * *
Chavinistic men can be petty and infuriating, but that might be as far as it goes. Women are more unnerved by not knowing a man&amp;#8217;s views than by overt sexism - so much so that they perform worse in exams.
Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton at the University of California, Berkeley, asked 170 female undergraduates to take a written test. Before the test they were randomly assigned to one of three empty offices, which they were told belonged to their male examiner. The fictional offices were furnished in one of three ways to allow the students to infer the examiner&amp;#8217;s view of women. They either had &amp;#8220;progressive&amp;#8221; decor such as a breast-cancer awareness banner, overtly sexist posters of women, or ...</description>
            <author>The Situationist</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1786252</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 04:53:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1786252</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

