Search

Prophetic Disciple (In memory of Sonya Massey) Wisdom (Sonya) predicted her death and the Land of Lincoln mourns as to protect and to serve murders an affect of angst seeking [...]

Simple Summary: This research was inspired by a desire to understand how adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) impact depression among cancer survivors. The study's findings revealed that cancer survivors with three or more ACEs had a depression rate of 40.8%, compared to 18.7% among those with one to two ACEs and 10.9% among those with no ACEs. Survivors with three or more ACEs were significantly more likely to report experiencing depression. Among the three ACE subtypes—sexual abuse, physical abuse, and having family members with mental illnesses—cancer survivors with family members suffering from mental illnesses had the highest odds of depression, followed by those who experienced physical abuse. These findings provide a crucial basis for health providers to screen cancer survivors for ACEs and depression, guiding proactive screening and treatment of depression in this vulnerable population. Objectives: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are linked to a heightened risk of depression. We explored the relationship between ACEs and both depression and mental distress among cancer survivors. Methods: This was a cross-sectional analysis using the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System database of cancer survivors aged ≥18 (n = 14,132). The primary outcome was self-reported history of depression, and the secondary outcome was mental distress. The exposure variable was the number of ACEs, classified as 0, 1–2, and ≥3. Weighted multivariable logistic regression models assessed the association between the number of ACEs and depression and mental distress while adjusting for covariates. Results: Approximately 22% of respondents reported experiencing ≥3 ACEs. The prevalence of depression was 21.8%, and mental distress was 15.4%. Compared with cancer survivors who had experienced 0 ACEs, those who had experienced ≥3 (aOR = 3.94; 95% CI, 3.04–5.10) or 1–2 (aOR = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.47–2.32) ACEs had a higher likelihood of reporting depression. Compared with cancer survivors who had experienced 0 ACEs, those who had experienced ≥3 (aOR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48–0.93) had a lower likelihood of reporting mental distress. Conclusions: This study highlights the impact of ACEs on depression in adulthood among cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The racial dust that we often do not see has been in the air ever since our country's beginning. As a result, the brutality of chattel slavery used for the [...]

Psychiatry is associated with the brain, but there is so much more to it than that. We are the field within medicine that deals with humanity. As such, we can [...]

To the Editor.-- As a nurse whose background is in newborn intensive care, I deeply appreciate the guidelines (1-3) of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) that address the issue [...]

The words, 'You already have 3 strikes against you,' spoken by my mother during childhood periodically echo in my thoughts. She was preparing me for the goliaths that I would [...]

Withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment (LSMT) in premature newborns requires extensive communication between parents and medical staff. The father of an infant boy born at 25 weeks old had personally caused disconnected the ventilator, a procedure contrary to the express wishes of both parents. The infant died about shortly thereafter in his mother's arms. Based on the medical examiner's homicide classification, manslaughter charges were brought against Mr. Messenger who was later acquitted. Failed communication between the neonatologist, the parents, and the physician's assistant caused confusion how to proceed after birth. The family or State authority must authorize LSMT or any treatment of newborns. Physicians should provide the necessary information on the benefits and risks of any intervention, drawing on the support of a hospital ethics committee if needed. Presuming parental approval for treatment may cause emotional distress and more difficult decisions later on., Opinions expressed in these commentarues are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the American Academy of Pediatrics or its Committees., On April 30, 1994, Gregory Messenger was charged with manslaughter for physically disconnecting his premature son from a ventilator.[1] He was acquitted of these charges on February 2, 1995. Although [...]

Two conflicting legal standards for intensive care decisions about when to treat and when to withdraw life support in cases of children with seriously deteriorating conditions may put physicians in a quandary. State legal standards uphold the informed parents' preferences in withdrawing life support, while the federal standard views withdrawal of life support as tantamount to child abuse and requires physician-directed care. The federal standard is based on the 1984 Federal Child Abuse Amendments, which were passed to ensure the right to life of very ill infants. A review of cases found through an electronic legal database showed that no physician or parent has been found guilty under the federal standard of abusing a child by withdrawing life support. However, the federal standard should not be ignored just because it has not been used successfully against physicians or parents., Background. Decisions to withdraw or withhold treatment from infants and children are continuing concerns. Physicians voice confusion over perceived legal requirements. This confusion may lead to overtreatment of patients. Recent evidence suggests legal concerns still shape physician treatment decisions. Objective. This study was undertaken to determine if the legal standard governing these medical decisions was clearly stated. Design. Conventional legal research was performed. Because the 1984 Federal Child Abuse Amendments require these issues to be resolved by state laws, statutes of the 50 states and the District of Columbia were reviewed to ascertain if they would support a charge of child abuse for the inappropriate withdrawal of life-support from a child. An electronic legal database was queried for all cases involving withdrawal of life-support in children since 1984; the cases were analyzed to determine if judges were applying the federal legal standard. Results. Current child abuse reporting laws would support the federal standard in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Six reported withdrawal cases were identified, none applied the federal standard. There is an emerging state legal standard that is flexible and subjective and allows a quality of life analysis because it is based on parental authority. This standard conflicts with the federal standard. Conclusions. The current law is unclear because two competing legal standards coexist; physicians cannot simultaneously meet both standards. Choosing to apply the state legal standard in clinical medical practice should support families in times of stress and relieve physicians of the burden of considering who is potentially overtreated. Pediatrics 1994;94:98-101; withdrawal, life-support, infant, child.

To the Editor.-- I applaud the effort of Dr Kopelman (1) to call attention to the disparities inherent in applying the Baby Doe rules and her courage in calling for [...]