Making decisions about fertility : three facts GPs need to communicate to women

Background Average annual fertility rates in industrialised countries have been below two children per woman for the past 3 decades. The reasons behind women’s childbearing behaviour are complex. However, a lack of awareness regarding the consequences of delayed childbearing and the inability of reproductive technologies to overcome the ‘biological clock’ may be contributory factors.

Objective A narrative review guided by the research question: What do women need to know about the consequences of delayed childbearing in order to make informed decisions about their fertility?

Discussion There are three facts that women need to know in order to make informed decisions around their fertility: Some women want to have more children than they are able to have because they postpone childbearing; there can be medical consequences to delaying childbearing and; some women’s ideas about their fertility don’t match the ‘the scientific facts’. General practitioners are well placed to play a strategic role in the provision of timely, relevant information to help women make informed decisions about their fertility. Further research is needed to identify the most appropriate ways for GPs to communicate this information.

The positive criteria of legal norms: law between facts and norms

Whether an abstract jurisprudence of law can be developed such that law is neutral with respect topositive choices, or whether law is necessarily informed by social facts, values and assumptions, with reference to the work of Jurgden Habermas, countering that author's claim of neutrality.

A tale of two expropriations: Newcrestia and Agrizania

A comparison will be made between the decision of the High Court of Australia in Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v The Commonwealth1 (“Newcrest”) and the decisions of the South African Courts in the Agri South Africa line of cases.2 Although the mineral law systems of the two countries differ insofar as historical development and content,3 the simplified facts of the Newcrest and Agri SA decisions and principles of expropriation law are similar enough to draw an interesting comparison between the respective cases. Both cases dealt with the issue of whether the mineral rights/mining rights of private holders were expropriated by legislation which prohibited mining in one way or another. A comparison between the cases shows the approaches towards the issues and what exactly constitutes deprivation and/or acquisition of property for purposes of expropriation and whether deprivation and/or acquisition actually took place.The differences between the mineral law systems of Australia and South Africa (before the enactment of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (hereafter “MPRDA”)) and the protection afforded against the resumption/expropriation of mineral rights or mining rights will be set as background information for a better understanding of the respective decisions. The facts of the two cases will first be set out and simplified for comparative purposes before the respective decisions are discussed. At the end, a comparison will be made between the decisions and a conclusion reached about the similarity of principles and the correctness of the respective decisions.

Host manipulation by cancer cells: Expectations, facts, and therapeutic implications.

Similar to parasites, cancer cells depend on their hosts for sustenance, proliferation and reproduction, exploiting the hosts for energy and resources, and thereby impairing their health and fitness. Because of this lifestyle similarity, it is predicted that cancer cells could, like numerous parasitic organisms, evolve the capacity to manipulate the phenotype of their hosts to increase their own fitness. We claim that the extent of this phenomenon and its therapeutic implications are, however, underappreciated. Here, we review and discuss what can be regarded as cases of host manipulation in the context of cancer development and progression. We elaborate on how acknowledging the applicability of these principles can offer novel therapeutic and preventive strategies. The manipulation of host phenotype by cancer cells is one more reason to adopt a Darwinian approach in cancer research.