Global Health Equity: Cancer Care Outcome Disparities in High-, Middle-, and Low-Income Countries

Breakthroughs in our global fight against cancer have been achieved. However, this progress has been unequal. In low- and middle-income countries and for specific populations in high-income settings, many of these advancements are but an aspiration and hope for the future. This review will focus on health disparities in cancer within and across countries, drawing from examples in Kenya, Brazil, and the United States. Placed in context with these examples, the authors also draw basic recommendations from several initiatives and groups that are working on the issue of global cancer disparities, including the US Institute of Medicine, the Global Task Force on Expanded Access to Cancer Care and Control in Developing Countries, and the Union for International Cancer Control. From increasing initiatives in basic resources in low-income countries to rapid learning systems in high-income countries, the authors argue that beyond ethics and equity issues, it makes economic sense to invest in global cancer control, especially in low- and middle-income countries

Spartan Daily, October 28, 2008

Volume 131, Issue 33https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartandaily/10517/thumbnail.jp

WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar in collaboration with the Department of Kowledge Management and Sharing, WHO, held in Geneva, 26 February 2010. Introduction by Professor Virginia Berridge, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. First published by Queen Mary, University of London, 2012. ©The Trustee of the Wellcome Trust, London, 2012. All volumes are freely available online at www.history.qmul.ac.uk/research/modbiomed/ wellcome_witnesses/Annotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar in collaboration with the Department of Kowledge Management and Sharing, WHO, held in Geneva, 26 February 2010. Introduction by Professor Virginia Berridge, London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineAnnotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar in collaboration with the Department of Kowledge Management and Sharing, WHO, held in Geneva, 26 February 2010. Introduction by Professor Virginia Berridge, London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineAnnotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar in collaboration with the Department of Kowledge Management and Sharing, WHO, held in Geneva, 26 February 2010. Introduction by Professor Virginia Berridge, London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineAnnotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar in collaboration with the Department of Kowledge Management and Sharing, WHO, held in Geneva, 26 February 2010. Introduction by Professor Virginia Berridge, London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineAnnotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar in collaboration with the Department of Kowledge Management and Sharing, WHO, held in Geneva, 26 February 2010. Introduction by Professor Virginia Berridge, London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineAnnotated and edited transcript of a Witness Seminar in collaboration with the Department of Kowledge Management and Sharing, WHO, held in Geneva, 26 February 2010. Introduction by Professor Virginia Berridge, London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineThe World Health Organization (WHO)’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is the first global convention on public health. Comprehensive tobacco control had been the subject of 20 resolutions – consensus statements of all the member states – passed by the World Health Assembly beginning in 1970. This was 20 years after Sir Richard Doll and Sir Austin Bradford Hill suggested a link between smoking and cancer. The idea of a legally binding international convention, proposed by the late Dr Ruth Roemer and supported by a report from Dr Judith Mackay, was given priority by the new WHO Director-General Dr Gro Brundtland in 1998 when she elevated tobacco control as one of WHO’s three flagship programmes and created the Tobacco Free Initiative. The idea took wing with the publication of a review of tobacco company strategies to undermine tobacco control activities at WHO, which drew on 13 million documents released by the US courts to the public in 1998. This Witness Seminar, held in Geneva on the fifth anniversary of the WHO FCTC in 2010, heard from key individuals actively involved with the treaty negotiations, held between 2000 and 2003, and which came into force on 27 February 2005.The History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group is funded by the Wellcome Trust, which is a registered charity, no. 210183

Causation’s Nuclear Future: Applying Proportional Liability to the Price-Anderson Act

For more than a quarter century, public discourse has pushed the nuclear-power industry in the direction of heavier regulation and greater scrutiny, effectively halting construction of new reactors. By focusing on contemporary fear of significant accidents, such discourse begs the question of what the nation\u27s court system would actually do should a major nuclear incident cause radiation-induced cancers. Congress\u27s attempt to answer that question is the Price-Anderson Act, a broad statute addressing claims by the victims of a major nuclear accident. Lower courts interpreting the Act have repeatedly encountered a major stumbling block: it declares that judges must apply the antediluvian preponderance-of-the-evidence logic of state tort law, even though radiation science insists that the causes of radiation-induced cancers are more complex. After a major nuclear accident, the Act\u27s paradoxically outdated rules for adjudicating causation would make post-incident compensation unworkable. This Note urges that nuclear-power-plant liability should not turn on eighteenth-century tort law. Drawing on modern scientific conclusions regarding the invariably statistical nature of cancer, this Note suggests a unitary federal standard for the Price-Anderson Act—that a defendant be deemed to have caused a plaintiff\u27s injury in direct proportion to the increased risk of harm the defendant has imposed. This proportional liability rule would not only fairly evaluate the costs borne by injured plaintiffs and protect a reawakening nuclear industry from the prospect of bank-breaking litigation, but would prove workable with only minor changes to the Price-Anderson Act\u27s standards of injury and fault

Spartan Daily, April 13, 1999

Volume 112, Issue 47https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartandaily/9404/thumbnail.jp

Spartan Daily, November 24, 1993

Volume 101, Issue 62https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartandaily/8489/thumbnail.jp

Working in it, through it, and among it all day. Chrome Dust at J & J White of Rutherglen, 1893-1967

Article examining working conditions at J & J White of Rutherglen from 1893-1967

Spartan Daily, May 2, 2005

Volume 124, Issue 60https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartandaily/10132/thumbnail.jp

Uranium Mining in Namibia: The Mystery Behind 'Low Level Radiation'

This report is the result of a project on uranium mining in Namibia commissioned by the Centre for Research on Multi-national Corporations (SOMO). The findings are based on secondary literature drawn mainly from the writings of Earthlife Namibia and empirical data collected by LaRRI during July and August 2007