The practices of apartheid as a war crime: a critical analysis

The human suffering caused by the political ideology of apartheid in South Africa during the Apartheid era (1948-1994) prompted worldwide condemnation and a variety of diplomatic and legal responses. Amongst these responses was the attempt to have apartheid recognised both as a crime against humanity in the 1973 Apartheid Convention as well as a war crime in Article 85(4)(c) of Additional Protocol I. This article examines the origins, nature and current status of the practices of apartheid as a war crime and its possible application to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Psychological distress in cancer patients assessed with an expert rating scale

The purpose of this study was to investigate psychosocial stress in a large sample of cancer patients using an expert rating scale. Specific aims were to analyse the relevance of setting variables (type of clinic, contact initiative, therapy) and gender. A total of 6365 patients were assessed in 105 institutions. Univariate and multivariate statistical analysis of setting variables indicated that patients treated in palliative care settings showed highest distress scores compared to patients recruited from hospitals and outpatient clinics (P<0.001). Significant differences were also found for contact initiative (P<0.001); lowest distress was found in patients who were recruited by routine contact. Patients who asked for psychosocial support or who were recruited by the medical staff showed the highest distress scores. The analysis of therapy groups showed that patients receiving radiotherapy or surgery were not more distressed than patients without therapy. The most distressing treatment was chemotherapy. Gender had differential effects on clinic type (P<0.001) and contact initiative (P<0.001) but not on treatment and diagnosis. Expert rating scales are an important complement for self-assessment questionnaires to evaluate psychological distress of cancer patients in psychosocial studies as well as in routine medical care

High levels of untreated distress and fatigue in cancer patients

The purpose of the study was to assess a large representative sample of cancer patients on distress levels, common psychosocial problems, and awareness and use of psychosocial support services. A total of 3095 patients were assessed over a 4-week period with the Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18), a common problems checklist, and on awareness and use of psychosocial resources. Full data was available on 2776 patients. On average, patients were 60 years old, Caucasian (78.3%), and middle class. Approximately, half were attending for follow-up care. Types of cancer varied, with the largest groups being breast (23.5%), prostate (16.9%), colorectal (7.5%), and lung (5.8%) cancer patients. Overall, 37.8% of all patients met criteria for general distress in the clinical range. A higher proportion of men met case criteria for somatisation, and more women for depression. There were no gender differences in anxiety or overall distress severity. Minority patients were more likely to be distressed, as were those with lower income, cancers other than prostate, and those currently on active treatment. Lung, pancreatic, head and neck, Hodgkin's disease, and brain cancer patients were the most distressed. Almost half of all patients who met distress criteria had not sought professional psychosocial support nor did they intend to in the future. In conclusion, distress is very common in cancer patients across diagnoses and across the disease trajectory. Many patients who report high levels of distress are not taking advantage of available supportive resources. Barriers to such use, and factors predicting distress and use of psychosocial care, require further exploration

Still a long way to go to achieve multidisciplinarity for the benefit of patients : commentary on the ESMO position paper (Annals of Oncology 25(1): 9-15, 2014)

The paper by ESMO ‘The current and future role of the medical oncologist in the professional care for cancer patients: a position paper by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)’ [1] conveys some important key messages for the whole oncology community. A working group (WG) involving 21 oncology and related societies would like to comment on the paper from a multidisciplinary perspective in the conviction that a more transparent and open definition of individual professional roles better supports the patients' care and facilitates best practices and progress in comprehensive cancer care