Evaluation of the contribution of theatre attendance to medical undergraduate neuroscience teaching - a pilot study.

Introduction: Medical students often attend the neurosurgical theatre during their clinical neurosciences attachment. However, few studies have been performed to objectively assess the value of this theatre-based learning experience. The main aim of this study was to explore student perceptions on the contribution of neurosurgical theatre attendance to clinical neuroscience teaching.

Materials and Methods: Third-year medical students undergoing their 2-week clinical neurosciences rotation at the Royal Hospitals Belfast were invited to participate in this study. A multi-method strategy was employed using a survey questionnaire comprising of closed and open-ended questions followed by semi-structured interviews to gain a greater 'in-depth' analysis of the potential contribution of neurosurgical theatre attendance to neuroscience teaching.

Results: Based on the completed survey responses of 22 students, the overall experience of neurosurgical theatre-based learning was a positive one. 'In-depth' analysis from semi-structured interviews indicated that students felt that some aspects of their neurosurgical theatre attendance could be improved. Better preparation such as reading up on the case in hand and an introduction to simple theatre etiquette to put the student at ease (in particular, for students who had never attended theatre previously), would improve the learning experience. In addition, having an expectation of what students are expected to learn in theatre making it more learning outcomes-based would probably make it feel a more positive experience by the student.

Conclusions: The vast majority of students acknowledged the positive learning outcomes of neurosurgical theatre attendance and felt that it should be made a mandatory component of the curriculum.

Unveiling Fairness for the Consumer:The Law, Economics and Justice of Expanded Arbitration

In recent years, the US Supreme Court has rather controversially extended the ambit of the Federal Arbitration Act to extend arbitration’s reach into, inter alia¸ consumer matters, with the consequence that consumers are often (and unbeknownst to them) denied remedies which would otherwise be available. Such denied remedies include recourse to class action proceedings, effective denial of punitive damages, access to discovery and the ability to resolve the matter in a convenient forum.

The court’s extension of arbitration’s ambit is controversial. Attempts to overturn this extension have been made in Congress, but to no avail. In contrast to American law, European consumer law looks at pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate directed at consumers with extreme suspicion, and does so on the grounds of fairness. In contrast, some argue that pre-dispute agreements in consumer (and employment) matters are consumer welfare enhancing: they decrease the costs of doing business, which is then passed on to the consumer. This Article examines these latter claims from both an economic and normative perspective.

The economic analysis of these arguments shows that their assumptions do not hold. Rather than being productive of consumer surplus, the use of arbitration is likely to have the opposite effect. The industries from which the recent Supreme Court cases originated not only do not exhibit the industrial structure assumed by the proponents of expanded arbitration, but are also industries which exhibit features that facilitate consumer welfare reducing collusion.

The normative analysis addresses the fairness concerns. It is explicitly based upon John Rawls’ notion of “justice as fairness,” which can provide a lens to evaluate social institutions. This Rawlsian analysis considers the use of extended arbitration in consumer matters in the light of the earlier economic results. It suggests that the asymmetries present in the contractual allocation of rights serve as prima facie evidence that such arbitration–induced exclusions are prima facie unjust/unfair. However, as asymmetry is only a prima facie test, a generalized criticism of the arbitration exclusions (of the sort found in Congress and underlying the European regime) is overbroad.

Revascularization versus medical therapy for renal-artery stenosis

Percutaneous revascularization of the renal arteries improves patency in atherosclerotic renovascular disease, yet evidence of a clinical benefit is limited.