Joanne Kenen of the New America Foundation is one of the few journalists (so far) to write about “The National Survey of Medical Decisions…(and) a series of papers and editorials in the journal Medical Decision Making. It comes at a time when ‘patient-centered care’ is a new buzzword in U.S. medicine; ‘shared decision-making’ and development of more patient decision aids may get a boost from health reform legislation.”
She also recently wrote, “So Much for ‘Death Panels’ – The new health care law aims to expand people’s options in deciding what kind of medical care they get in their final years of life.”
What’s that? No death panels? Expanded options for deciding about care? What kind of journalism is that? The kind we still need a lot more of with rhetoric still raging and truth continuing to take a hit from many angles.
Kudos to Kenen and the New America Foundation for educating readers about all of this shared decision-making news.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
SM Fitzgerald
October 8, 2010 at 3:33 pmThank goodness somebody is talking sense on this issue. Reframing palliative and end-of-life care as “death panels” will doubtless cause countless people needless pain. There must be a special place in hell for these fear-mongers.
Tomorrow is World Hospice and Palliative Care day. Learn more: http://www.nhpco.org/templates/1/homepage.cfm
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like