A small step for mankind's battle with Cancer

The FDA has approved a test called mammaprint which will genetically assess the likelihood of a female patient diagnosed with breast cancer to have a recurrence or perhaps a new tumor. This breakthrough is a magnificent leap in the fight against cancer because it gives the 20% of women breast cancer patients who would suffer a recurrence a leg up on early diagnosis and it puts the rest of the population more at ease. Not that a cancer patient is ever completely at ease. As I approach my 5 year mark for freedom from recurrence I am still left with irrational days of uncertainty where I am anxious about my fate. Nevertheless, any statistical or educational advantage is a breath of fresh air to a cancer patient.
So I still don't understand why a disease which almost exclusively strikes women and is the third leading killer of women is not researched more vigorously. Mind you, women make up the majority of voters in this country and yet they hide behind their partners, anonymity and apathy, in failing to demand that their representatives in government allocate more money to cancer research and specifically breast cancer research. I don't hear Hillary Clinton advocating more research money as she touts cutting payments to doctors as the cure for our health insurance crisis. At this point Hillary and her trial lawyer associates will get the best care money can buy so why should she worry.
The deafening silence toward cancer research in particular and the relationship between doctors and patients in general will one day generate action. Must we always wait for crisis to act?

American Board of Cosmetic Surgery Continues Progress in California

California law precludes physicians from advertising their board certification unless the board is a member board of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) or a board that posses requirements equivalent to those of the ABMS member boards. The California Act sets forth 19 regulatory requirements a board must establish through application to the Medical Board of California (MBC) in order to b e deemed equivalent. Through its Application, submissions, and presentations the ABCS established it met, and in many ways exceeded the 19 regulatory requirements, mandating the MBC approve its Application. Nevertheless, without reason or basis, the MBC denied ABCS's Application on November 4, 2005.
As a result of the MBC's baseless denial of ABCS's Application, the ABCS filed a Petition in the Superior Court of California, seeking a cou8rt order that the MBC comply with the Act and grant ABCS's Application. As you may know, on September 19, 2006 the Superior Court of California granted ABCS's Petition and specifically found the ABCS met, or exceeded, all the regulatory requirements of California's Act, conclusively establishing it to be "equivalent". Accordingly, the Court directed the MBC to set aside its decision and grant ABCS's Application for specialty board approval.
The MBC filed a Motion for New Trial seeking to have ABCS's Application remanded to the MBC for findings of fact to support its denial. After considering the entire administrative record, the Court denied MBC's Motion on December 12,2006. The Court concluded a remand would be unjust and futile because t"the Court determined that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support a denial of ABCS's Application."
Despite two comprehensive orders of the Court, MBC filed a notice indicating its intention to appeal the Court's decision.
While I often deride the legal profession for spending valuable time and money on strictly partisan issues, this is an example of physicians doing the same thing for economic advantage.