Latest headlines


Propecia Generic For Male Pattern Baldness

The drug propecia generic was originally intended for treating prostate enlargement or benign prostatic hyperplasia. When its branded name Proscar was released in the market, it was noticed that men who were suffering from androgenic alopecia were also being treated by the drug.  It was then that the manufacturer took notice and created some clinical studies and found out that Proscar, which came at 5mg, which at lowered dosage, particularly 1mg, could help fight androgenic alopecia.  Several years later, the brand Propecia, an offshoot of the drug Proscar was approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a treatment for androgenic alopecia.

Who is propecia generic intended for?

Propecia generic is meant for men suffering from male pattern baldness and want to stop the progression of their hair loss.  Signs of male pattern baldness would be the thinning of hair on the front, the receding of hairline on the temples, and the formation of a bald spot on the crown.  In due time, this type of baldness will let you end up bald from top to front with a rim of hair at the sides and back.  propecia generic is effective against this type of hair loss because it is able to treat it at the root of the cause – the formation of the hormone dihydrotestosterone (DHT).  Basically, this hair loss treatment prevents your hair loss from getting any worse.  If your hair loss is due to androgenic alopecia, then this is the medication for you.  Consult your doctor to know what type of hair loss you are having. Read more…

Publishing info on dead soldier was unethical, MD concedes

Dr Kevin Patterson (right) has admitted to acting unethically and unprofessionally and has been disciplined by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia for publishing a graphic magazine article about his experience treating soldiers in Afghanistan.

In the article, published in Mother Jones magazine, Dr Patterson vividly described and gave the name of a Canadian soldier who died in a shooting that took place inside NATO's Kandahar base.

The Canadian military, which was investigating the killing and has since laid charges against another soldier, considered bringing criminal charges against Dr Patterson for releasing classified information without permission but eventually relented.

The disciplinary decision (PDF) from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC consists of a written reprimand and requires Dr Patterson to take courses in ethics and professionalism, to pay $5,000 in costs to the college, and to donate the $7,000 Mother Jones paid him for the article to charity. The punishment has been publicized across the country, from Dr Patterson's local Nanaimo Daily News to the Canadian Press and CBC News. "I'm glad he did admit it," Kevin Megeney's mother told CBC News. "We were shocked at the article. It was very graphic."

Dr Patterson's admission that he acted unethically stands somewhat in contrast to a statement he made to me shortly after the article appeared in print in summer 2007, when he seemed to defend his decision to publish the soldier's name and to describe his dying moments in detail. "If the public is to get a sense of the price being paid on our behalf by these young men and women, it is necessary to face with open eyes the grotesque nature of war trauma," he wrote to me in an email. "The recent disengagement and fatigue of the public with these matters is itself grotesque."

As a journalist, Dr Patterson acted not just ethically but admirably. But as a physician -- as the College argued, and as he seems now to admit -- his ethical obligations changed. Could Dr Patterson's admission cause a chilling effect in his and other physicians' writing and reporting? I hope not. Dr Patterson and other doctors will surely realize that the circumstances that led to this outcome were unusual and limited in scope. Nevertheless, in the disciplinary decision is a good lesson for doctors who write: "Dr. Patterson has assured the College that in any future writings based on medical scenarios, or in any future works of journalism or fiction, he will not include the identities of patients or any information that could identify patients."

Also, let me add: don't breach the terms of your confidentiality contract with your employer.

Get Canadian Medicine news by email or in an RSS reader


  1. sharon29 January, 2009 9:21 AM

    This is a very interesting article on the passions, talents, and commitment of the humanitarian perspective.

    In one discipline( medicine)the "action" infringes upon the rights of another.

    In one discipline (journalism)the "action"is designed to personalize and put a human face on the tragedy of war.

    This case profiles the depth of commitment the physician has to the individual patient ( an intimate and binding trust)and how strongly governing bodies seek to use that bond as a "control" mechanism.

    It would be wonderful if the reason was the patient but I suspect the reason is to prevent the ultimate/? inevitable breakdown of commitment between patient and doctors that necessitates the control of "association" beyond membership advantages.

    For those, like myself,that expect confidentiality from physicians, clergy and lawyers I am happy to look at their own "performance contracts" and sign for release of information .... perhaps doctors should consider that ( I am sure they do them for the television reality medical shows).

    A good "ethos" must be broader than the perspective of the individual regardless of professional title or arena of operation.

    For myself, my motto is" if you cannot be bought you cannot be sold" .
    This eliminates "owing your soul to the company store"


Newer Post Older Post Home