Categories
Cardiovascular
Diagnostics
Endocrinology
Health Insurance
Medical Devices
Mental Health
Nutrition
Oncology
Public Health
Sexual Health
Popular Articles
Natural Remedies

Editorials Respond To Selection Of Sotomayor As Supreme Court Nominee
Several newspapers recently published editorials on President Obama"s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Summaries appear below.~ Boston Globe: "Some liberal activists hoped that Obama would seek a firebrand to counter [Supreme Court Justice] Antonin Scalia, the darling of the right," but "Sotomayor has made her reputation not on hot-button social issues but on matters ranging from environmental regulation to the baseball business," a Globe editorial states. It adds that while Sotomayor "presumably shares Obama"s support for abortion rights, she upheld the Bush administration"s restrictions on family-planning activities" by international groups that received U.S. funding. Now, "conservative groups have seized upon an offhand remark in 2005" when she described the "federal appeals courts as the place "where policy is made" ... as evidence that Sotomayor would legislate from the bench," the editorial states, adding. "The attack is disingenuous." The editorial concludes, "Short of any unexpected revelations about her record or her philosophy, though, the Senate should confirm Sonia Sotomayor," adding that in addition to her "intriguing" personal background she "also has the experience to make an excellent Supreme Court Justice" (Boston Globe, 5/27).~ Chicago Tribune: Sotomayor "has to bring more than diversity to the court," a Tribune editorial states, adding that the "evidence so far suggests that she is up to the job." One "would expect a nominee chosen by Obama to be on the liberal side of the judicial spectrum," but some of her rulings "suggest otherwise," according to the editorial. While Sotomayor "has stressed that the "duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms,"" on the bench, "she ruled against an abortion-rights group challenging" the Bush administration"s "global gag rule," the editorial notes, among other rulings that "could be characterized as "conservative decisions"." However, "the point is not that she"s a closet conservative -- it"s that ideology didn"t seem to determine her decisions," according to the editorial. The "Senate has a responsibility to undertake a thorough examination of her record and her thinking," the editorial states, concluding, "But for now, it looks as though her critics have a tough task ahead of them" (Chicago Tribune, 5/27).~ Los Angeles Times: "Sotomayor doesn"t possess the political experience that would be brought to the court"s cloistered chambers by Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) or Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano," but "she satisfies Obama"s other criteria: experience, erudition and, as he put it, "a common touch and a sense of compassion, an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live,"" a Times editorial states. Sotomayor"s "experiences as a Latina raised in a housing project who went on to excel at Princeton and Yale don"t in themselves qualify her for the court," but these facts do "complement her sterling credentials and equip her with perspectives that could illuminate legal issues that come before her," the editorial continues. Senate Republicans "should accord her the same respect [they] demanded for Bush"s nominees and end the tiresome tit-for-tat that has cheapened the confirmation of federal judges and deprived the bench of some of the nation"s most capable legal minds," the editorial concludes (Los Angeles Times, 5/27).~ Philadelphia Inquirer: "Sotomayor would bring to the court a diversity it has lacked for most of its history," an Inquirer editorial states. Although "[c]onservatives want to make an issue out of President Obama"s search for "empathy" in a nominee" and "criticize Sotomayor for a speech in 2001 in which she said that being a woman of color affects her decisions," neither comment "is sinister nor shocking," according to the editorial. It concludes, "The Senate has a duty to examine Sotomayor"s qualifications rigorously and fairly. But she appears to have the experience and the
generic viagra online
Researchers Identify Gene That Regulates Tumors In Neuroblastoma
Virginia Commonwealth University researchers have identified a gene that may play a key role in regulating tumor progression in neuroblastoma, a form of cancer usually found in young children. Scientists hope the finding could lead to an effective therapy to inhibit the expression of this gene.
News of the day
Addictive 'Spice Gold' Causes Withdrawal Syndrome
A clinical report from Dresden supports the impression that "Spice Gold" is strongly addictive. In the current edition of Deutsches Arzteblatt International (Dtsch Arzteblatt Int 2009: 106[27]: 464-7), Ulrich S. Zimmermann, from Dresden Technical University, and his colleagues describe a young man who developed physical withdrawal symptoms after regular consumption of this designer drug, accompanied by a dependence syndrome.
Diagnostics

Questions Over The Gates Foundation's Allocation Of Funds-To Whom Do They Answer?

A paper in this week"s Lancet raises questions about the transparency, accountability and governance of the Gates Foundation (GF). This Health Policy paper is written by Dr David McCoy, Centre for International Development, UCL (University College London), UK, and colleagues. An Editorial and Comment accompany the piece. The Gates Foundation (GF) is the largest private grant-making foundation in the world. McCoy and colleagues analysed where and how its funds have been used. Between 1998 and 2007, the GF awarded 1094 grants worth almost US$ 9 billion. Individual grants varied from $3,500 to $750 million. Some 65% of all funds was shared by just 20 organisations, including The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI), the Global Fund, an American NGO called PATH, and a small selection of universities in the US and UK. GAVI received two grants of $750 million, one to purchase new vaccines, and the other for general operating support. A total of 76 universities worldwide received $1.8 billion of funding, but nearly 60% of this went to just eight institutions in the US and UK. WHO received $336 million (4% of its total funding) - the GF is now one of the biggest donors to WHO, exceeding the contributions of most G20 governments. In terms of geographical location, 40% went to international or "supranational" bodies, eg, GAVI and WHO. Of the remaining funds, 82% went to organisations based in the USA, 13% to Europe and other high income countries, and 5% to low- and middle-income countries. The authors say: "All the key contributors to global health have an association with the Gates Foundation through some sort of funding arrangement. Coupled with the large amount of money involved, these relations give the foundation a great degree of influence over both the architecture and policy agenda of global health. Through its funding of non-governmental organisations and policy think tanks, the foundation also confers power and influence on a selected number of organisations and in doing so, establishes some leverage over the voice of civil society." Regarding disproportionately high funding to certain US Universities, the authors add: "This large amount of funding concentrated within a small number of US-based institutions raises questions about their privileged status among organisations operating in global health." On the subject of accountability, the authors say: "Grant making by the Gates Foundation seems to be largely managed through an informal system of personal networks and relationships rather than by a more transparent process based on independent and technical peer review...the process by which individual proposals for projects are solicited, adjudicated, and funded is unclear." The authors also question the priority given to technological/research solutions over health system strengthening - since there are many existing cost-effective technologies that do not reach those in need. They say: "There should be more data-driven discussion about the overall effect of the Gates Foundation"s approach to global health improvement. In view of its receipt of public subsidies in the form of tax exemptions, there should also be an expectation that the foundation is subject to some public scrutiny." In the accompanying Comment, Professor Robert Black, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA, and colleagues say that the very limited direct funding from GF to low- and middle-income countries is "arguably the most unfortunate imbalance in the research portfolio of the Foundation". They conclude: "A modest shift of the balance of the Foundation"s funding from the purchase of commodities to research, from heavily funded diseases to truly neglected diseases (such as pneumonia and diarrhoea), and from high-income-country institutions to those in settings where the problems exist would make enormous additional contributions to global health." The Editorial praises the GF"s contribution to GAVI, and other successful projects. However, it says there is serious anxiety about the transparency of the Foundation"s operation. It adds: "Although [the Foundation] is driven by the belief that "all lives have equal value", it seems that the Foundation does not believe all voices have equal value, especially voices from those it seeks most to assist." The Lancet has five proposals for the GF. First, improve its governance. Second, be more transparent and accountable in its decision making. Third, devise a grant award plan that more accurately reflects the global burden of disease. Fourth, do more to invest in health systems and research capacity in low-income countries. And finally: "Listen and be prepared to engage with your friends. The Lancet was sorry that the Foundation declined our invitation to respond to the paper by McCoy and colleagues, and to set out its vision for their role in global health." The Editorial concludes: "The Gates Foundation says that it is "open to amending" its principles as it grows and learns more about its work. Now is an inflection point in the Foundation"s history, a moment when change is necessary." Link to Editorial The Lancet


Add your comment:
Name:
Site address: http://
Your message:
Enter today\\\\'s date, 2 digits
(spam protection):

© Copyright 2009