Current United States stem cell policy considerations and a recommendation for an alternative policy based on guidelines from existing international policies

Embryonic stem cell research is a widely debated topic in modern politics and religion. Differing views on the fetal rights conflict with the rights of an embryo. Those who believe an embryo has the same human qualities as a fetus accordingly believe embryonic stem cell research is unethical because it destroys a potential human life. However, scientists advocate the embryo does not have human qualities and should be used for valuable research in the stem cell field. Stem cell research may lead to vast developments in medical treatments, including cancer and brain conditions and injuries that are currently incurable. ^ The current stem cell policy introduced by President Bush in 2001 in an attempt to balance the moral issues with the need for scientific research has broad negative implications on the furthering of stem cell research. There is a limited diversity of available stem cell lines, there may be constitutional issues, there is an increasing disparity between the public and private research spheres, and the U.S. is struggling to maintain its scientific community. The U.S. must develop a new stem cell research policy that will balance the interest of science and public health with the moral issues that concern the public. ^ The United Kingdom allows researchers great liberty in conducting research, permitting the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of research, while Germany is equally conservative in their laws, as their policies support the philosophy that all embryos deserve the protection of full life. The United States should adopt a policy that takes the "middle ground" approach and permit research on excess embryos created for IVF purposes, rather than simply discarding those potentially valuable research tools. ^

"I understood what she meant when she said '21st century medicine'": A qualitative analysis of patient responses for plans for colorectal cancer screening following a recommendation from their physician

Although physician recommendation has been significantly associated with colorectal cancer screening (CRCS), it still does not motivate all patients to get CRCS. Although improved physician recommendation for CRCS has been shown to increase patient CRCS screening, questions remain about what elements of that discussion may lead to screening. The objective of this study is to describe patients' perceptions and interpretations about their physician's recommendation for CRCS during their annual wellness exam. A subset of patients (n=51) participating in a supplement study of a behavioral intervention trial designed to increase CRCS completed a follow-up, open-ended interview two to four weeks after their annual wellness visit. Using qualitative methods, transcripts of these interviews were analyzed. Findings suggest that most patients would follow their physician's recommendation for CRCS despite not engaging in much discussion. Patients may refrain from CRCS discussion because of a commitment to CRCS, awareness of screening guidelines, and trust in physician's honesty and beneficence. Yet many patients left their wellness exams with questions, refraining because of future plans to consult with their physicians, perceived time constraints or a lack of a patient-physician relationship. If patients are leaving their wellness exams with unanswered questions, interventions should prepare physicians for patient reticence, teaching physicians how to assure patients that CRCS is a primary care activity where all questions and concerns, including cost and scheduling, may be resolved.^