<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: art caplan</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 'art caplan'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22art+caplan%22&t=%22art+caplan%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:53:11 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>An Undisclosed Conflict On The FDA Avandia Panel?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3767310&amp;cid=t_179640_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FjqjElo7HkFY%2F</link>
            <description>When the FDA held a media briefing prior to the controversial advisory panel last week for the Avandia diabetes drug, an agency official was asked whether any conflict of interest waivers were issued for the panel members. Under pressure, you may recall, the agency revised its those rules and now attempts to vet financial holdings or relationships to drugmakers that are provided by panel members (see this).
In response, Jill Warner, acting associate commissioner for Special Medical Programs, said none were issued. However, there was an undisclosed, ongoing relationship involving one panel member. David Capuzzi, an endicrinologist who has been a professor at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, last year earned $3,750 as a speaker for GlaxoSmithKline, which sells Avandia (see the li...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3767310</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:11:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3767310</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Should Glaxo Test Paxil On Children?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3595898&amp;cid=t_179640_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FGvBTxrsHLjI%2F</link>
            <description>Six years ago, Paxil was one of several antidepressants that had a Black Box warning slapped on its labeling over links to suicidal thought and behavior in youngsters. Since then, there has been nothing but controversy over the extent to which this move did more than harm than good, with some doctors arguing that the negative publicity and regulatory restrictions were scaring some physicians and patients who might otherwise benefit from a helpful treatment (see this, this and this).
And so on this basis, GlaxoSmithKline is now conducting a pediatric study in Japan. The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial seeks to compare Paxil over an eight-week period in 130 children and adolescents age seven to 17 suffering from major depressive disorder. &amp;#8220;There remains a substantial...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3595898</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 16:37:51 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3595898</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bioethicists Weigh In On the Healthcare Reform Vote (updated)</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3403844&amp;cid=t_179640_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E3%2FZCDfBbsuRbw%2Fbioethicists-weigh-in-on-healthcare_22.html</link>
            <description>As the readers of this blog know, both myself and several of our bloggers have posted about universal health care coverage many, many times as an ethical and moral imperative. In the last year, my hopes (along with many other bioethicists, I'm sure ) of attaining universal coverage have gone up, down and sideways, like a roller-coaster ride, exhilarating and frightening, with emotions ranging from inspiration to resignation.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Now that the US House of Representative has finally passed a health reform bill, I've requested several bioethicists (and friends of the WBP) to share their thoughts on the ethical implications of the passage of this bill:
Art Caplan of UPenn:&amp;nbsp; &quot;The passage of this bill, flaws and all, represents the elimination of the single greatest failure in Americ...</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3403844</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:13:03 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3403844</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bioethicists Weigh In On the Healthcare Reform Vote</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3395086&amp;cid=t_179640_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E3%2FZCDfBbsuRbw%2Fbioethicists-weigh-in-on-healthcare_22.html</link>
            <description>As the readers of this blog know, both myself and several of our bloggers have posted about universal health care coverage many, many times as an ethical and moral imperative. In the last year, my hopes (along with many other bioethicists, I'm sure ) of attaining universal coverage have gone up, down and sideways, like a roller-coaster ride, exhilarating and frightening, with emotions ranging from inspiration to resignation.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Now that the US House of Representative has finally passed a health reform bill, I've requested several bioethicists (and friends of the WBP) to share their thoughts on the ethical implications of the passage of this bill:
Art Caplan of UPenn:&amp;nbsp; &quot;The passage of this bill, flaws and all, represents the elimination of the single greatest failure in Americ...</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3395086</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 01:50:59 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3395086</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>An Open Letter to Future Bioethicists</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2916069&amp;cid=t_179640_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E3%2FncTf-uXKHro%2Fopen-letter-to-future-bioethicists.html</link>
            <description>I couldn't attend the ASBH meeting in DC this year, but apparently, Ezekiel &quot;Zeke&quot; Emanuel gave quite a controversial speech. While I don't have the text of the original speech, my guess is that it will be posted on the ASBH website at some point. But what I do have is Art Caplan's response, from which you can glean certain aspects of Zeke's speech -- I'll be interested to see/hear what kind of reaction this gets:

  Facts alone won’t suffice for the field of bioethics

When you get old enough as a practitioner in any field young people seek your advice about what they should do if they want to do what you do. Given that my age seems to be increasing exponentially this has been happening to me with increasing frequency. Undergraduates, high school students, medical students, those pursui...</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2916069</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:23:35 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2916069</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Are your genes your property?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2405068&amp;cid=t_179640_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E5%2FIpdIUOX5DlM%2F20090513patent_BRCA_Complaint.pdf</link>
            <description>In an earlier related post on biobanking, we asked our readers if they thought whether or not one's DNA should be private or publicly banked; the response was overwhelmingly in favor of privacy.  Similarly, the notion of property rights in application to genes and genetic information presents serious challenges, as the Council for Responsible Genetics has long argued; their Genetic Bill of Rights includes a section that states &quot;All people have the right to a world in which living organisms cannot be patented, including human beings, animals, plants, microorganisms and all their parts.&quot;Now this issue is going before the courts: A group of patients, genetic researchers, and professional associations have filed a lawsuit against Myriad and the US Patent Office for patenting the genes known as...</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2405068</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 00:00:12 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2405068</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Stop that Bug!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2375901&amp;cid=t_179640_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E3%2FXvVCC-S-JlQ%2Fstop-that-bug.html</link>
            <description>Colleague and WBP supporter Art Caplan explains that the 1918 offers some lessons for us today and that all of us have a responsibility to keep swine flu from spreading:When faced with the threat of disease, the impulse of most Americans is to think about medical technology and miracle drugs. These are not likely to be much help in the battle against swine flu — but the history books might. As history has proven, the best way to halt a deadly virus is to keep infected people away from others. In 1918, an influenza pandemic caused by a strain of flu similar to the one identified in Mexico killed more people than died in all of World War I. Up to 50 million people died worldwide. The greatest number of deaths occurred among young adults between the ages of 15 and 35.At the time, young Amer...</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2375901</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 02:08:06 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2375901</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Biobanking Throwdown: 2nd Round</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2306832&amp;cid=t_179640_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E3%2FnkfIUXQSIRU%2Fbiobanking-throwdown-2nd-round.html</link>
            <description>We had posted earlier about the ongoing debate on the ethics of DNA databasing -- here is round two in the debate. Our poll is still open, let us know where you stand! (Source: Women's Bioethics Blog)</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2306832</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:35:51 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2306832</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>BiobankingThrowdown: The Ethics of DNA Databasing</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2306834&amp;cid=t_179640_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E3%2FlYjouSQE0Zk%2Fbiobankingthrowdown-ethics-of-dna.html</link>
            <description>Do you agree or disagree with the following proposition? (take our poll and we'll compare it with the Economist's poll results) :People's DNA sequences are their own business, and no one else's. Art Caplan and Craig Venter go toe-to-toe on this issue, with Art Caplan defending the privacy of DNA and Craig Venter arguing for public access. An excerpt of the discourse:Art Caplan: &quot;There are, it is increasingly said, plenty of reasons why people you know and many you don't ought to have access to your DNA or data that are derived from it. Have you ever had sexual relations outside a single, monogamous relationship? Well then, any children who resulted from your hanky-panky might legitimately want access to your DNA to establish paternity or maternity&quot; ...to read more, click here.Craig Venter:...</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2306834</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:47:57 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2306834</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>More on the Octuplets</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2167716&amp;cid=t_179640_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E3%2F533603303%2Fmore-on-octuplets.html</link>
            <description>Our friend and supporter, Art Caplan, sheds some more light on the ethical implications of the octuplets in his Philly op-ed: &quot;Something has gone terribly wrong when a 33-year-old single woman - who has no home of her own, no job, and a mother who worries her daughter is &quot;obsessed&quot; with having children - winds up with 14 of them. And all are under age 8, including eight newborn babies now in a neonatal nursery in various states of prematurity. Examining what exactly went wrong may shed some light on what ought to be done. If doctors cannot prevent such a shambles from recurring, then society must.The woman in question, Nadya Suleman, lives with her parents in a small home near Los Angeles. She has had infertility problems linked to blocked Fallopian tubes. She can make eggs, but they canno...</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2167716</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:19:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2167716</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Nip/Tucking Your Way to Beauty Queendom</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1964118&amp;cid=t_179640_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E3%2F455043177%2Fniptucking-your-way-to-beauty-queendom.html</link>
            <description>Friend and colleague Art Caplan comments on the ethical issues surrounding Venezuelan beauty pageants on Bloomberg.com:&quot;Eva Ekvall says she was 17, a little overweight and dreaming of winning enough to buy a car when she entered her first beauty contest. Plastic surgery was the last thing on the young Venezuelan's mind.       Then she met Osmel Sousa, the Pygmalion of her country's beauty industry. Three months later, weighing 10 kilograms (22 pounds) less, her nose reshaped, and with breast implants, Ekvall was crowned Miss Venezuela...       Cuban-born Sousa, 60, who has run the Miss Venezuela franchise since 1981, is responsible for most of the country's five Miss Universe, five Miss World and five Miss International titles. He openly encourages surgery.       ``This isn't a nature cont...</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1964118</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:46:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1964118</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama election signals change in stem cell fight</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1939196&amp;cid=t_179640_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E3%2F444913257%2Fobama-election-signals-change-in-stem.html</link>
            <description>A commentary by friend and colleague Art Caplan in his MSNBC column:'Change' was the horse that Barack Obama's presidential campaign rode to victory. Indeed the 2008 election will be remembered not only for Obama becoming the first African-American president, but also for its impact on core bioethical topics that have long dominated American domestic politics. Divisive issues such as abortion bans failed to gain traction on state ballot initiatives, while newer bioethical concerns that are likely to dominate American politics for years to come, including physician-assisted suicide, emerged.The past eight years of the Bush White House have seen stem cell research and the status of embryos at the center of the moral values debate. Obama's election has brought the fight over embryonic stem ce...</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1939196</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:26:11 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1939196</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Off Label meds are the REAL worry, not placebos</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1921023&amp;cid=t_179640_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E3%2F436401707%2Foff-label-meds-are-real-worry-not.html</link>
            <description>Art Caplan brings us all up to speed in his latest MSNBC column:Last week, a newly released study showed that half of all American doctors who responded to a nationwide survey say they regularly prescribe placebos to patients. This news captured a lot of media attention and elicited a round of ethical hand-wringing with many experts wondering if systematically deceiving patients by giving them placebos without telling them was right. But ironically, there is a paper out this week in Public Library of Science Journal that is getting nowhere near the same attention as the placebo study, but raises a far more serious concern: Doctors prescribing off-label medicines that may not work.In 2001, the last year for which data is available, American physicians wrote 150 million prescriptions off-lab...</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1921023</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:48:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1921023</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Do Prisoners Have the Right to Starve Themselves to Death?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1840879&amp;cid=t_179640_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2008%2F09%2Fdo-prisoners-have-right-to-starve.html</link>
            <description>The bioethicist Art Caplan has argued against a court order requiring prison authorities to force feed a prisoner named William Coleman, who is on a hunger strike. It is against his autonomy, Caplan opines. From his column: Recently, he took a turn for the worse. Prison officials, fearing for his life, sought and received a court order giving them the right to force-feed Coleman by giving food and water intravenously. They are wrong. Competent prisoners should not be fed medically against their will.Feeding Coleman or any other prisoner will require a doctor, nurse or other medically-trained prison worker to use restraints while inserting needles carrying artificial nutrition into the body. Feeding of this sort, as the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in the 1990 case of Nancy Cruzan, a young...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1840879</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:57:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1840879</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Ghosts In Pharma’s Attic: Art Caplan Explains</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1399360&amp;cid=t_179640_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F277727510%2F</link>
            <description>The corrosive scandal over ghostwriting is causing great debate and handwringing. You may recall that an examination of medical journal articles about Vioxx and court documents from Vioxx lawsuits found that Merck employees or ghostwriters were frequently involved in various articles, but the primary authors were often academics who actually had little to do with the studies or didn’t always disclose financial ties to Merck. We asked Art Caplan, who heads the BioEthics Center at the University of Pennsylvania, what authors ought to know and do.
Pharmalot: A lot of the controversy has focused on drugmakers, medical journals and ghostwriting firms. What about the individual doctors or academics?
Caplan: The issue is what&amp;#8217;s the appropriate role, if any, for third writing help. I would...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1399360</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:49:30 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1399360</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

