<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: canadian medical association</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 'canadian medical association'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22canadian+medical+association%22&t=%22canadian+medical+association%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:32:08 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Sex During Pregnancy Is Safe</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4445800&amp;cid=t_315074_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fsex-during-pregnancy-is-safe%2F2011.02.07</link>
            <description>The Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) has published a new primer designed to help physicians when they counsel pregnant women. They note that sex during pregnancy is normal and is generally considered safe. The authors point out that there are very few proven contraindications and risks regarding intercourse in normal pregnancy.
Pregnant women and their partners are often afraid to have sex. Men may think they are &amp;#8220;invading&amp;#8221; the home of the fetus and could actually harm the baby. In fact, the fetus is quite safe, ensconced in the uterus (womb) and the cervix (opening of the uterus) is closed in normal pregnancy. The penis has no contact with the fetus or the uterus during normal intercourse, no matter what the position.
When is intercourse considered risky? Only f...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4445800</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 02:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4445800</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>SSRI Antidepressants Linked to Cataracts, Miscarriages</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3621754&amp;cid=t_315074_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2010%2F06%2F02%2Fssri-antidepressants-linked-to-cataracts-miscarriages%2F</link>
            <description>It&amp;#8217;s not been a good news week for SSRIs, a popular and common class of antidepressants that are widely prescribed by family physicians, interns and psychiatrists alike.
A study released in the journal Ophthalmology showed that in seniors, SSRIs can increase the risk of developing cataracts in your eye by 15 percent in general. But researchers found it was even worse for some specific kinds of antidepressants &amp;#8212; Fluvoxamine (Luvox) increases the risk by 39 percent, venlafaxine (Effexor) increases the risk by 33 percent and paroxetine (Paxil) increases the risk by 23 percent.
A separate study also published this week found that taking SSRI antidepressant medications (and the SNRI Effexor) significantly increased &amp;#8212; by 68 percent &amp;#8212; the risk of miscarriage.
Read on for t...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3621754</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 12:22:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3621754</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Canadian Medical Association Gets Dumb (and $780,000)</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3056723&amp;cid=t_315074_109_f&amp;fid=38951&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fcarlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F12%2Fcanadian-medical-association-gets-dumb.html</link>
            <description>The Canadian Medical Association is getting plenty of flak about their $780,000 CME deal with Pfizer, and anyone with half a brain can see why. Pfizer is not in the business of altruism. When they spend lots of money, they do so in order to make their shareholders happy.For example, when the company cut a $12.3 million CME deal with a collaborative including the University of Wisconsin and the California Academy of Family Physicians, they did so in order to encourage doctors to talk to their patients about smoking cessation. Presumably, this increased sales of Pfizer's anti-smoking drug Chantix. While this CME program, called CS2 Day (Cease Smoking Today), does not have the blatant infomercial feel of most commercial CME, it treats Chantix with kid gloves. As covered in the Milwaukee Journ...</description>
            <author>The Carlat Psychiatry Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3056723</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:17:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3056723</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Canada’s Medical Assn Chided For Pfizer CME Funds</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3056886&amp;cid=t_315074_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FIq5TRgT3rT0%2F</link>
            <description>The Canadian Medical Association is being criticized for agreeing to accept $78,000 in funding from Pfizer&amp;#8217;s Canadian subsidiary to create continuing medical education programs (here is the CMA statement). Several prominent physicians argue the CMA may cross ethical lines in ways that could negatively influence treatment decisions.
&amp;#8220;Partnering with a pharmaceutical company sends the wrong message to doctors – that we don’t have to pay for our continuing education, that it’s the responsibility of others. This is unlike how any other profession deals with continuing education,&amp;#8221; Joel Lexchin, a health-policy professor at York University in Toronto, tells us.
&amp;#8220;The sponsorship provided by Pfizer sets up a &amp;#8216;gift relationship&amp;#8217; between Pfizer and the docto...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3056886</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:46:17 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3056886</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>“We seem to have conveniently forgotten that the pharmaceutical industry is in business to make money, not to educate health professionals.”</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3052379&amp;cid=t_315074_150_f&amp;fid=34768&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpharmagossip.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F12%2Fwe-seem-to-have-conveniently-forgotten.html</link>
            <description>Source (Source: PharmaGossip)</description>
            <author>PharmaGossip</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3052379</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:04:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3052379</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Verbal Gruel from the Ethics Director of the Canadian Medical Association</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1640202&amp;cid=t_315074_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2008%2F07%2Fverbal-gruel-from-ethics-director-of.html</link>
            <description>Regular readers of SHS will (I hope) recall the comment I made the other day about an article in the Journal of Pediatric Nursing that was so neutral on infanticide, it seemed to me to be greasing the skids toward moving policy toward professional permissability. In that entry, I said in part:Terminal Non Judgmentalism Alert: An important professional journal aimed at pediatric nurses has discussed killing sick and profoundly disabled patients with studied neutrality.This is precisely how the Culture of Death permeates our society. A bioethical practice once almost universally condemned is promoted at the fringes. The initial response is resistance. But soon, the non judgmentalism arrives, usually in professional journals and among &quot;progressive&quot; pundits, asserting that these issues are &quot;co...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1640202</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:42:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1640202</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

