Orphan Drugs

 By Megan Lutz

This article is about pharmaceutical companies having to submit applications for their treatments
to be labeled as "orphan drugs" (a drug used to treat any disease with
less than 200,000 affected in the US). With this designation,
companies receive several incentives, including tax breaks and
marketing privileges, that help to offset the fact that they have a
very limited pool of people to which they can sell their product. My
mom works for one of the companies mentioned in this article, and she
has had the opportunity to work on a drug called Sabril, used to treat
a type of seizure affecting about 8,500 infants. I know that this drug
has been a huge endeavor for the company and there has been several
obstacles, including finding enough subjects to use for clinical
support of the drug's effectiveness. I think that this is interesting
to us as future physicians for several reasons and serves as a
reminder that there are many interactions involved in medicine in
addition to the one occurring between the doctor and the patient.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704145904575111943356541152.html?KEYWORDS=orphan+drugs

Abstienence Only Sex Education

 By Christine Graves

Obama administration has begun to shift federal funding from abstinence-until-marriage sex education programs to reducing teen pregnancy "through science-based prevention approaches,"; however, a recent study has shown that abstinence-only sex education program was effective in delaying sexual activity among teenagers. But, there were some positive effects from a comprehensive sex education including reduction of number of students reporting multiple sexual partners. Read more below about the debate on what we should be teaching teenagers about sex. Become educated on the different sides of the debate, form your own well-informed opinion, and impress others with your knowledge!

Latest Abstinence Study Does Little To Quell Sex Education Debate
A recent study showing that an experimental abstinence-only sex education program was effective in delaying sexual activity among teenagers is far from the last word in the debate over sex education, the Boston Globe reports. According to the Globe, the study's results come at a "pivotal point" in the debate, as the latest data show that the U.S. teen pregnancy rate rose in 2006 for the first time in since the early 1990s. The sex education study, conducted by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania, found that sixth- and seventh-graders in Philadelphia who were enrolled in an abstinence-only program that did not include a moralistic message were less likely to become sexually active than students who completed a comprehensive program that included information about contraception.
The results of the new study have reopened the "tinderbox that is sex education" and shown that it is "as combustible as ever," the Globe reports. Bill Albert, chief program officer for the National Campaign To Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, said the debate over sex education "is a mini culture war." He added, "The reason why this is so fraught with controversy and elicits such passion is because it touches on some primal issues that people care deeply about -- education of our children, when and under what circumstances to start a family, sex."

Abstinence-only advocates claim the recent study offers "proof they were right all along," the Globe reports (Smith, Boston Globe, 2/15). The advocacy group Abstinence Clearinghouse on its Web site proclaimed that the study proved "comprehensive sex ed a big flop." However, such claims are disputed by John Jemmott, the lead author of the study, who said that the program in the study would not have qualified for federal funding under the Bush administration because it did not emphasize abstinence until marriage and included information on contraception.

Jemmott added that the study also did not prove that a more comprehensive program failed, as that approach resulted in some positive outcomes, such as reducing the number of students who reported multiple sexual partners. "On the one hand are people who are concerned that the comprehensive intervention was not significant, and on the other are those who are happy that it wasn't significant," Jemmott said, adding, "Both reactions are wrong" (Flam, Philadelphia Inquirer, 2/16). 

 

Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, said that although Jemmott's study was more rigorous than those in the past, opponents of abstinence-only education have been too critical of previous studies. "When opponents just repeat the same sound bites without a real understanding of what the broad abstinence field looks like, it can cast a much different view of what these programs really are," Huber said, adding, "That's another reason I'm actually happy the conversation has been reopened as a result of this study."

The results of the study come as the Obama administration has begun to shift federal funding from abstinence-until-marriage sex education programs to reducing teen pregnancy "through science-based prevention approaches," according to a federal official. According to Albert, the program created for Jemmott's study would meet the new standard for federal funding, although it is unknown how effective the program would be in a different community or among other adolescents. "I don't think we can let the perfect be the enemy of the good," Albert said, adding, "We now have a good program that's been well-evaluated and well-tested. Let's go try it elsewhere" (Boston Globe, 2/15). He also said, "We need to buck up and move beyond politics to invest in things that work. While adults are arguing about all this, teenagers are getting pregnant" (Philadelphia Inquirer, 2/16). 

From http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/179349.php

MCAT vs Personality

Bryce Bond

      The biggest challenge of any pre-medicine student is matriculating into a medical program.  Regardless of one’s choice of D.O or M.D., one thing is clear…you must perform well on the MCAT.  A lesser G.P.A can be forgiven by excellent MCAT marks but a sub-28 composite and most students start looking at Master’s in Public Health programs.  An interesting article caught my attention in the New York Times a while ago.  The columnist sought to look into whether the importance of the MCAT is starting to be downplayed or even eliminated.  Here is the link to the story http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/health/14chen.html.

I think the personality testing that is proposed in the article is a vital assessment medical schools should take either replacing the MCAT scores or supplementing an application.  As a junior who is taking the MCAT this summer, I am very weary of receiving a poor score on the test.  Although I believe that I will end up doing just fine on the exam, I would like to think that my value as a doctor is more than the amount of science I know.  From firsthand experience as a surgical patient this summer, character counts.  With that said, we all want the surgeon who wrote the textbook (and in my case I did in fact have that surgeon).  The point is clear and everyone should already know it:  We are more than the information we learn because of our character.  The columnist also added that the personality testing would be a means of showing that a hard working individual can, in fact, make-up his or her lower score one the MCAT.  Good work ethic makes doctors more aware and better at what they do.  Ultimately, each person brings something unique to the medical field and that needs to be evaluated and considered by schools.  Doctor-patient interactions are most crucial when hard decisions have to be made.  I know I trusted my doctor this summer to no end.  He was able to provide care when I was most vulnerable and did so with kindness and skill.  Someday, hopefully, I will be able to bring a similar experience to my patients.