Tag Archives: court

Court ruling may open access, decrease costs for breast cancer gene test

A ruling by the Supreme Court that human genes can't be patented is expected to increase access and drop the cost for tests for gene mutations that greatly raise the risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer. In a bit of a mixed message, the court unanimously decided that certain types of gene tests may still be protected by patents, yet it struck down patents that a company has long held for BRCA genes. The company makes the only test for two of those breast cancer genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. “It appears that it will allow the market to open up so that other laboratories can offer the test,” said Rebecca Nagy, a genetics counselor at Ohio State University and president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. And that should make the tests cheaper and available to more women, she said. Hours after the ruling, one company - DNATraits, part of Houston-based Gene By Gene, Ltd. - said it would offer BRCA gene testing in the United States for $995 - less than a third of the current price. A primer on the case: Q: What did the court say? …

Man sues doctor, says penile implant gave him 8-month erection

A truck driver who says a penile implant gave him an erection that lasted eight months described in court Tuesday how the procedure caused him to withdraw from much of life, wearing long, baggy sweat pants and a long shirt to hide his condition. Daniel Metzgar, 44, of Newark, testified in New Castle County Superior Court in Wilmington in his medical malpractice lawsuit against Wilmington urologist Dr. Thomas Desperito. He told jurors the inflatable prosthesis made him feel like less of a man. Colleen D. Shields, Desperito’s lawyer, said in her opening statement that sometimes bad medical results occur through the fault of no one. She also said that the urologist told Metzgar the prosthesis had to be removed four months after the surgery when Metzgar complained of an infection and that the erection wasn’t going down. Shields said Metzgar didn’t do anything for months after that visit, the News Journal of Wilmington reports. Metzgar had the procedure in December 2009. He said he lost his insurance afterward and didn’t have $10,000 he said Desperito wanted before he would do the surgery. The prosthesis was removed in August 2010 after tubing from the device punctured Metzgar’s scrotum. He now has a replacement prosthesis from another doctor. But Metzgar says scar tissue from the first surgery left him about 50 percent smaller and he does not get the same level of sensation. Metzgar and his wife, Donna, are seeking unspecified damages from Desperito and his medical group.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/06/12/man-sues-doctor-after-penile-implant-gave-him-8-month-erection/

Dr. Manny: FDA loss of control on Plan B not surprising

I told you so - the government is bamboozling us about Plan B. The Obama administration announced on Monday that it will now allow girls and women of all ages to purchase the Plan B pill without a prescription. This is exactly what I have been warning the American public about. I am now totally convinced that our current federal government loves confusion. When you have a single agenda, and many ways to spin it, the American public never gets a clear answer and that is exactly what has happened with the Plan B emergency contraception controversy. Just last week, a U.S. appeals court ruled that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must make only certain forms of the emergency contraception pill available to children of all ages, without a prescription.  In a confusing ruling, the court stated that while the two-pill version of emergency contraception could be sold over-the-counter to women of all ages, the one-pill version would still only be sold to women age 17 or older. The court did not explain its reasoning. One has to remember that the FDA first approved this form of over-the-counter contraception for women of all ages back in 2011. When that initial FDA ruling came out, there was a loud public outcry and restrictions were quickly put in place barring women under the age of 17 from purchasing these pills. But of course, that was just one spin on the story. In April, a New York judge ruled that restricting access to Plan B was inappropriate, forcing the FDA to reconsider their initial finding that emergency contraception should be available to children of all ages. And then, we got another spin on the story, as the FDA tried to lower the age limit for access to emergency contraception to 15 last month. There was another outcry and more criticism, because we know perfectly well that a 15-year-old may not have a clear understanding of how to utilize emergency contraception. Now, we see that the FDA will get to do what they wanted to do in the first place. How convenient. So, what’s the message here?

Dr. Manny Alvarez: Government must stop bamboozling Americans about Plan B

I am now totally convinced that our current federal government loves confusion. When you have a single agenda, and many ways to spin it, the American public never gets a clear answer and that is exactly what has happened with the Plan B emergency contraception controversy. A U.S. appeals court ruled on Wednesday that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must make certain forms of the emergency contraception pill available to children of all ages, without a prescription. This is exactly what I have been warning the American public about. One has to remember that the FDA first approved this form of over-the-counter contraception for women of all ages back in 2011. When that initial FDA ruling came out, there was a loud public outcry and restrictions were quickly put in place barring women under the age of 17 from purchasing these pills. But of course, that was just one spin on the story. In April, a New York judge ruled that restricting access to Plan B was inappropriate, forcing the FDA to reconsider their initial finding that emergency contraception should be available to children of all ages. And then, we got a third spin on the story, as the FDA tried to lower the age limit for access to emergency contraception to15 in May. There was another outcry and more criticism, because we know perfectly well that a 15-year-old may not have a clear understanding of how to utilize emergency contraception. Now, we see that an appeals court is forcing the FDA to do what they wanted to do in the first place. How convenient. And the final ruling is still unclear, after the court decided on Wednesday that while the two-pill version of emergency contraception can now be sold over-the-counter to women of all ages, the one-pill version will still only be sold to women age 17 or older. The court did not explain its reasoning. While there is still a lot of confusion about the ruling, it seems as though the FDA will ultimately get its way. So, what’s the message here? The polarizing health care agenda of this federal government is like a train without a stop and parents need to be aware of this. As I have said before, this is a medication. Yes, I know that it is safe – but it does have side effects. Side effects to Plan B can include, but are not limited to: migraines, high cholesterol, high blood pressure and blood clots. If this drug is available to young children, it might lead to problems including the misuse of the medication and the risk that children will utilize this as a regular form of contraception. Furthermore, it will exclude parents from the decision-making process. And in my opinion, parents can be very valuable in counseling children about proper behavior and doing the right thing. This is taking parents and caregivers out of the equation and inhibiting their ability to help their children live a healthy and happy life. America, we are being bamboozled. Wake up and pay attention.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/06/05/dr-manny-government-must-stop-bamboozling-americans-about-plan-b/

Paralyzed British men fight right-to-die case in court

Two paralyzed British men who want to die but cannot kill themselves went to court on Monday seeking protection from prosecution for those who could help them end their lives. The case is one of the most high-profile attempts to change the law on the right to die in Britain, where assisted suicide is illegal. “I'm constantly thinking, 'how on Earth can I do it without getting someone into trouble?'” said Paul Lamb, who was left paralyzed by a car accident in 1990. “I just want my wishes to be respected, that's all I want,” Lamb, 57, told reporters outside the courtroom. He is immobile except for limited movement in his right hand, requires 24-hour care and is constantly on morphine to relieve pain. Judge Igor Judge, speaking at the start of the hearing in the Court of Appeal, said he was aware of the men's “desperate situation” and he was sympathetic. “But they must surely know that we cannot decide this case as a matter of personal sympathy. We have to decide it as a point of law.” Lamb was in court in his wheelchair as the judge spoke. The other man, named only as Martin, is a 48-year-old who was left unable to speak or move after a stroke four years ago. He can communicate only through movements of the head and eyes. “It is their experience that their life has become unbearable,” said Paul Bowen, a lawyer representing Lamb. Law “inadequate” The details of the two men's cases are different, but in essence both are seeking help from the courts in ensuring that anyone who helps them to die will not be prosecuted. Bowen cited a report to parliament last year that concluded that British law in the area of assisted dying was “inadequate, incoherent and should not continue”. The issue of whether or not to decriminalize assisted suicide for people whose lives are unbearable to them is a matter of debate in many countries. Right-to-die advocates say people capable of making that decision should be allowed to die with dignity. Opponents say liberalizing the law could leave vulnerable people at risk. Switzerland and the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington and Montana are among places where some forms of euthanasia or assisted suicide are legal under certain circumstances. By coincidence, Monday's court hearing started two days before a bill is due to be presented to the British parliament that would legalize assisted suicide in certain circumstances. But Bowen said that even if that bill were to become law at some point, it would not be enough for Lamb. Lamb's case was originally brought by a man with locked-in syndrome, Tony Nicklinson. A court dismissed both Nicklinson's and Martin's cases last August on the grounds that it was for parliament and not for a court to change the law in this area. After being told the court's decision on August 14, Nicklinson refused food and medication and died on August 22. Lamb, who was not involved at that stage, has since been allowed to take up the legal battle where Nicklinson left off.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/13/paralyzed-british-men-fight-right-to-die-case-in-court/