Entries from blog.bioethics.net tagged with 'breast cancer'

Caplan: New Mammogram Recommendations Accurate, but Not Right

While the data may support pushing back the timeline for routine mammograms from age 40 to 50 for women, Arthur Caplan questions the decision in his most recent MSNBC column saying that "there is every reason to doubt that the numbers they compiled will be sufficient to overturn a medical... (read the rest)

Racing For a Cure--And Taking Genetic Samples at the Same Time?

As a woman and a supporter of research of all kinds, I still have a hard time swallowing this request: "You are healthy. You feel great. Can you help us out by participating in a research study where we will biopsy your breast and take out healthy tissue for our... (read the rest)

Caplan Asks Whether Genetic Tests Are Worth The Price

Last week in his MSNBC column, Art Caplan asks whether breast cancer genetic tests are worth the price or whether biotech companies are cashing in on women's cancer fears. Below is the full text of the column: Breast cancer gene tests -- not worth the price? Biotechnology firms hope to... (read the rest)

23andHerBreasts

On Thursday, 23andMe announced their latest initiative aimed at bringing together the largest cohort of women with breast cancer "to build an infrastructure, based on genetics, that will accelerate consumer-based research of the disease." The women who opt for 23andMe's genetic testing services can opt-in for other kinds of surveys... (read the rest)

feed these results

If you use an RSS reader, you can subscribe to a feed of all future entries from blog.bioethics.net tagged 'breast cancer'. [What is this?]

Subscribe to feed Subscribe to feed

tags from blog.bioethics.net

abortion (9)

Abraham Lincoln (1)

academia (8)

academic publishing (6)

addiction (3)

Africa (2)

aging (2)

agriculture (1)

airlines (1)

AJOB (22)

AJOB Neuroscience (1)

AJOB Primary Research (1)

alcohol (1)

allergies (1)

ALS (1)

Alta Charo (1)

AMA (2)

American Journal of Bioethics (6)

Andrew Wakefield (1)

animals (16)

anorexia (1)

anthrax (1)

APA (1)

archaeology (1)

Art Caplan (26)

artificial intelligence (2)

ASBH (3)

assisted reproduction (1)

athletics (1)

autism (9)

award (1)

Barack Obama (1)

basic research (1)

beyond genetics (1)

bias (1)

BIID (1)

BioEdge (1)

bioethics (32)

bioethics.net (17)

biotechnology (6)

bioterrorism (1)

birth weight (1)

blog.bioethics.net (10)

blogs (3)

BMJ (2)

book (1)

brain-computer interface (1)

breast cancer (4)

Britain (1)

business ethics (1)

cadavers (1)

California (2)

Canada (1)

cancer (3)

caregiver (1)

Catholic chuch (3)

CDC (2)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1)

cessation (1)

cheating (1)

chemistry (1)

chemotherapy (2)

children (31)

chimeras (5)

China (6)

chocolate (1)

Christian (1)

cigarettes (1)

civil rights (1)

clinical ethics (5)

clinical trials (8)

cloning (18)

Coast IRB (1)

COBRA (1)

commission (2)

conferences (1)

conflict of interest (6)

consumer (1)

contraception (1)

cord blood (1)

cosmetic surgery (4)

cosmetics (1)

courts (1)

CPR (1)

Craig Venter (8)

crime (1)

databases (3)

death (4)

death penalty (5)

dementia (1)

democracy (1)

Democrats (1)

dental health (1)

developing countries (7)

development (1)

devices (1)

diabetes (1)

disability (1)

diversity (1)

DNA (4)

DNR (2)

doctors (41)

donation (1)

drug abuse (2)

e-card (1)

eating disorders (1)

economics (3)

education (1)

egg donation (5)

eggs for research (1)

elderly (1)

election 2008 (15)

electronic health records (1)

Elsevier (4)

embryos (13)

emergencies (2)

emergency research (1)

empirical bioethics (2)

employment (1)

end of life (4)

enhancement (25)

environment (3)

epidemics (1)

epidemiology (2)

ethical (1)

ethicist (2)

ethics (28)

Europe (1)

euthanasia (3)

evolution (3)

exercise (1)

Ezekiel Emanuel (1)

face (1)

facebook (4)

families (3)

FDA (18)

federalism (2)

fertility tourism (1)

flight simulators (1)

fMRI (2)

following up (1)

food (17)

food ethics (6)

forensics (1)

funding (2)

games (1)

gay rights (1)

gender (4)

gender theory (1)

gene therapy (3)

genetic disease (9)

genetic engineering (1)

genetic modification (5)

genetic testing (26)

genetics (24)

genomics (12)

Geron (1)

glenn mcgee (2)

Glenn McGee (15)

Google (1)

government (5)

Harvard (2)

healing (1)

health (16)

health 2.0 (1)

health insurance (27)

health reform (18)

healthcare (40)

hearing (1)

heart attack (2)

HIV/AIDS (3)

holocaust (1)

hospitals (8)

human rights (1)

humanities (1)

humans (1)

Hurricane Katrina (1)

Hwang Woo-suk (2)

Ian Wilmut (1)

illness (1)

industry (7)

infants (1)

infectious disease (12)

influenza (18)

informed consent (3)

injury (1)

Institute of Medicine (1)

insurance (2)

international (7)

internet (8)

interview (1)

iphone (2)

iPS cells (19)

Iran (1)

IRB (2)

IVF (2)

James Fossett (1)

John McCain (1)

Johns Hopkins (2)

Johns Hopkins University (1)

Joseph Biden (3)

journalism (2)

Kevorkian (2)

kidneys (2)

law (15)

legislation (2)

Leon Kass (1)

liberty (1)

license (1)

living donors (1)

longevity (2)

lying (1)

March of Dimes (1)

Marfan syndrome (1)

marriage (1)

massage (1)

masters degree (1)

media (13)

medical devices (5)

medical education (3)

medical ethics (10)

medical marijuana (2)

medical schools (11)

Medicare (2)

medicine (5)

memory (1)

mental illness (2)

MercatorNet (1)

Merck (4)

military (1)

Mitt Romney (1)

mobile (1)

models (2)

money (3)

Montana (1)

morality (3)

multiple births (1)

nanotechnology (18)

neuroethics (20)

neuroimaging (2)

neuromarketing (2)

neuroscience (27)

New York (1)

news (1)

news top 5 (17)

NHS (1)

NIH (2)

northfield laboratories (1)

Notre Dame (1)

NUBC (1)

nurse (1)

nutraceuticals (1)

nutrition (1)

NYT (2)

NYU (1)

Obama (5)

obesity (12)

octomom (1)

octuplets (3)

Olympics (2)

online (1)

oprah (1)

organ donation (19)

organ sales (5)

organ transplants (18)

pain managment (2)

pandemics (8)

parents (1)

partner notification (1)

patient rights (4)

patients (7)

Paul Wolpe (1)

payment (1)

peer-review (1)

Perfect Baby (1)

personalized medicine (4)

Peter Singer (1)

PGD (1)

pharmaceuticals (24)

pharmacists (5)

philanthropy (1)

philosophy (5)

physician assisted suicide (3)

placebo (1)

planned parenthood (1)

podcasts (1)

policy (7)

politics (69)

polyheme (1)

popularized science (11)

pregnancy (5)

premiums (1)

President Obama (2)

prison (1)

privacy (12)

pro-life (1)

provigil (1)

psychology (8)

public health (30)

public opinion (3)

quality improvement (1)

radiology (1)

ranking (1)

rationing (2)

records (1)

reform (1)

regulation (13)

religion (7)

Reloxin (1)

reproduction (22)

reproductive technology (21)

research (31)

research ethics (26)

research funding (3)

residency (2)

review board (1)

Rick Weiss (1)

robots (10)

rss (1)

Sarah Palin (1)

SCHIP (1)

scholarship (4)

school (1)

science (2)

sex (4)

sex education (2)

sleep (2)

smoking (4)

Snuppy (1)

social networking (1)

South Korea (3)

space (1)

sperm donation (6)

sports (7)

Stanford University (1)

state regulation (18)

STD (1)

stem (1)

stem cell research (8)

stem cells (71)

stroke (1)

surgeon general (1)

surgery (2)

swine (13)

synthetic biology (10)

taxes (3)

technology (9)

teenagers (1)

telemedicine (1)

television (7)

terminal illness (1)

terrorism (1)

Texas (4)

The Scientist (4)

therapy (2)

tobacco (1)

Today Show (3)

torture (1)

transgenic (1)

transplantation (3)

Twitter (1)

UK (2)

UMBC (1)

undergraduate (1)

uninsured (1)

University of Pennsylvania (1)

vaccines (17)

vatican (1)

veterans affairs (1)

veterans day (1)

video (1)

voting (1)

war (1)

war on terror (1)

Washington Post (1)

weather (1)

Wesley Smith (1)

WHO (1)

women (10)

work (1)

xenograft (1)

yuck factor (3)

Zoloth (1)