Medical Treatment Authorization Pdf: Fill & Download for Free

The article this question uses as a source ran in The Independent in 2013. It’s summarizing a study that came from Social Science Quarterly in December of that year. Here’s how the authors of the paper summarize their objectives:Media effects research has generally ignored the possibility that popular films can affect political attitudes. This omission is puzzling for two reasons. First, research on public opinion finds the potential for persuasion is highest when respondents are unaware that political messages are being communicated. Second, multiple studies have found that entertainment media can alter public opinion. Together, this suggests that popular films containing political messages should possess the potential to influence attitudes.And their findings:We find that popular movies possess the ability to change political attitudes, especially on issues that are unframed by the media. Furthermore, we show such influence persists over time and is not moderated by partisanship, ideology, or political knowledge.By the way, the full paper is here, and you can peruse it at your leisure.Now, you’ll notice that the paper’s authors didn’t frame their findings as “drama films make us liberal.” They said “popular films can affect political attitudes.” When you further look at their methodology, you’ll notice that the study’s authors did not look at whether or not films “make us liberal,” they specifically chose three films:That Thing You Do, which was the control.As Good As It Gets, wherein one character facilitates the medical treatment of the child of another character, where that other character would not have been able to afford the treatment otherwiseThe Rainmaker, which is explicitly about an insurance company screwing over a leukemia patient they were obligated to cover.The authors thus picked a specific topic (health care reform) and thus saw if watching movies about it without any prior framing would change someone’s attitudes on the topic. They found it did.Then The Independent got its hands on the survey, saw that “health care reform” was used as a topic, figured that the authors were saying something about movies making us more liberal, and got their clicks. This is sensationalism, because while the original study is anodyne — it really should not surprise you to hear that fiction can change the way you think — the story that ran in The Independent is specifically framed as partisan.This brings me to an important point: if you’re reading a newspaper article about a scientific study, stop reading the article and start reading the study. The studies are frequently freely available — you’ll notice, I linked a PDF — and you don’t have to worry about the story being doctored to be more newsworthy. There are going to be papers where this will not work (I don’t know about you, but I’m not going to understand anything involving supercolliders), but when possible, read the paper, not the story about the paper. You generally end up with much less sensationalistic nonsense that way.So why do drama movies make us liberal? They don’t. I mean, yeah, watching The Rainmaker may make you more sympathetic to the idea of health care reform, but that doesn’t mean dramatic films drag you to liberalism.

Edward Jenner was not the “hero” who first discovered VACCINATIONS in the 1790s for smallpox as most people are taught. The word “vaccination” was coined by one of Jenner’s friends to distinguish his inoculation with cowpox from inoculations with smallpox developed by Chinese physicians 800 years earlier. But both meet that same biomedical definition of vaccine — a biological preparation that provides acquired immunity to a disease, typically made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins.In the medieval period (900–1000 AD) Chinese physicians observed that smallpox transmitted by applying pus to a small scratch in the skin was less severe than transmission by someone coughing aerosolized sputum onto another person who breathed that in. They also noticed that dried scabs applied to scratches or nasal membranes did the same thing. That developed into a ritualized practice in which boys would receive the innoculation in the right nostril and girls in the left. Back then smallpox was not just severely disfiguring but deadly; 20–30% of cases were fatal.Because these practices did not control the “dose” of virus being given sometimes the result was a desirable mild rash followed by immunity against smallpox for life — but other times it induced full-blown smallpox that resulted in death. Thus it was not widely known and practiced until the mid 1500s, according to the author Yu T'ien-Chih and recorded in the book Miscellaneous Ideas in Medicine by Yu Chang in 1643. Meanwhile this information had spread to India where the preferred inoculation was scratching or injecting small amounts of smallpox pus under the skin. (BTW, these differences in reduced infectiousness of inoculations compared to natural smallpox transmisstion was confirmed in animal studies in 1906 by Americans Brinckerhoff & Tyzzer who inoculated monkeys in different ways and sites and produced data that matched the Chinese and Indian observations.) Smallpox innoculations spread west in the Ottoman Empire reaching Turkey by the 1700s and also being practiced in North Africa (Sudan).In 1700 English physicians Lister and Havers each published reports in the Transactions of the Royal Society on Chinese inoculations. In 1714 Greek physicians Timonis and Pylarinos who practiced this procedure in Constantinople published a report on their work in Transactions also. Reaction was skeptical until some famous people took note. One was American Cotton Mather who was prominent Massachussets Colony minister, amateur scientist, and notoriously involved in Salem Witch trials. More importantly was English Lady Mary Wortely Montegu who was a poet, writer, and wife of England’s ambassador to Turkey who had gone through her own bout of smallpox and had been disfigured. To protect her children, she had her six-year-old son inoculated while in Turkey, and in 1721, in the presence of Royal Society Members, she had her daughter inoculated in England. This led to adoption of smallpox inoculation, mainly by the aristocracy in England and Central Europe and partly in the American colonies.During America's War of Independence, George Washington had his army inoculated. British troops had the advantage of being exposed to smallpox or being inoculated, but the isolated American colonists were vulnerable. Boston, under military occupation, suffered a smallpox epidemic in 1775, and Philadelphia was hit in 1776. Concern that this would spread to the army was realized when American forces sent to Quebec were decimated by smallpox, not the British, causing Benjamin Franklin to say the army’s downfall would come from smallpox not warfare. There were fears of inoculation in America, stoked partly by a backlash to Cotton Mather’s attempts to promote it, such that the Continental Congress issued a proclamation in 1776 PROHIBITING smallpox inoculation. But Washington wrote Congress in 1777 informing them of his plan to proceed — active soldiers would not be inoculated as to incapacitate them for month of recovery making the army vulnerable to British attack, rather, inoculation would be applied only to new recruits so that they would have gotten over the mild sickness by the time they were trained, outfitted, and ready to fight. Disaster was averted.So inoculation was not a secret in Jenner’s time. In fact, Edward Jenner himself, when he was young boy, was inoculated for smallpox in 1757 .The first *recorded* smallpox vaccination was by Jenner in 1796, but the first *documented* smallpox vaccination was by Benjamin Jesty in 1774, a quarter century earlier. What’s the difference? In one case it was a matter of being published in a scientific or medical forum, and thus properly reported and “recorded” in the scientific literature. In the other case, it was a matter of having been done and written about somewhere like a newspaper or a correspondence. This is not a minor distinction, as the following will show.Jenner did the famous experiment in 1796. He then sent a communication to the Royal Society in 1797 which was rejected with the statement that Jenner “ought not to risk his reputation by presenting to the learned body anything which appeared so much at variance with established knowledge, and withal so incredible.” So he published a booklet himself about his successful cases in 1798 -- that's the date which tends to be cited as the first recorded vaccination.Anyway, the more interesting thing to this discussion is Jesty the Dorset farmer, depicted above. He did vaccinations on his own family decades earlier. It was written about in the local press of his region. Here is Jesty’s story… “Faced with a local outbreak of smallpox in 1774, Jesty devised the idea of inoculating his family with cowpox as a safer alternative to the conventional variolation method. To achieve this goal, he took his family to the hamlet of Chetnole, where he had heard there were cows with symptoms of cowpox. Jesty transferred material from lesions on the cows’ teats to the skin of the arms of his 3 subjects by insertion with a stocking needle. This act occurred 22 years before Jenner’s vaccination of James Phipps. The news soon spread... Correspondence indicates that knowledge of Jesty spread over a significant area of the south of England. This extraordinary event was validated and chronicled by sources in Dorset, including letters from William Dolling, the Reverend Hermann Drew, and the noted physician Dr Richard Pulteney. Direct evidence was recorded by the Reverend Andrew Bell, who interviewed Jesty at Swanage, and again later by the officers of the Original Vaccine Pock Institution in London.... Jesty received some recognition from the Original Vaccine Pock Institution but never from the Jennerian Society or the Royal Society.” (From: Pead, Vaccination’s Forgotten Origins, 2017)Despite lack of official recognition, there was some knowledge of Jesty’s role that circulated British medical circles. Jesty’s wife had a strong reaction which necessitated medical treatment, prompting some public criticism that labeled him a “brute.” A century later, a physician happening upon Jesty's gravestone reported on the inscription in an 1895 issue of British Medical Journal and attested to the validity of Jesty’s experiment prior to Jenner (Vaccination before Jenner). The modern, restored headstone can be seen in this photo: Jesty’s Grave, History of Vaccines.The idea that cowpox prevented smallpox was fairly well known, and this was discussed in various medical and scientific correspondences prior to Jenner’s 1796 experiment. Several physicians wrote about the belief. Among several examples that can be found, a clear statement came from a Shaftsbury surgeon by the name of Nash who died in 1795. Upon his death it was discovered that he left behind a manuscript written in 1781 which stated that cowpox in humans was not contagious, does not cause lesions, and provided reliable protection against smallpox. While that wasn’t published it’s clear that many medical men knew that cowpox blocked smallpox. A Mr. Daniel Sutton, an uncredentialed practitioner who developed a successful technique for smallpox inoculation (variolation) became well known: “In 1766 after thirteen years of activity [he] apparently inoculated twenty thousand persons without long a single one by the Inoculations.” He also became rich — he charged 10 pounds per patient. Sutton had started out testing his technique on poor peasants, and later remarked that many of them had no reaction to the variolation procedure because their resistance to smallpox was due to the fact “that they previously suffered a disease contracted by milking cows with cowpox. [Fewster & Sutton] conducted further research to test this assertion, which appeared to be true; Mr. Fewseter conveyed the information to a medical Society of which we has a member but no one thought to put this valuable observation to good use.” (From H Bazin, Vaccination: A History from Lady Montagu to Genetic Engineering).As for Jetsy’s and Jenner’s actual tests, the issue was well document when it was taken up a in court testimony from Dorset, and in an inquiry by the House of Commons in 1805 that requested evidence.Why court proceedings? Money.The story about Jenner observing the dairy maids getting cow pox and being protected from small pox is known to be apocryphal. Jenner as a lone discoverer was a myth that was purposefully cultivated and concocted later by his biographer. But in the 1800–1805 period, Jenner would be awarded £30,000 in grants by the Crown only after "Originality" had been established. That was a TON OF MONEY in those days. Jenner had a lot to be gained by having the official record show him with sole credit. There's reason to believe Jenner purposely inflated his contribution at the expense of long-known information before him.Here is another excerpt from the Pead article regarding Jenner not mentioning Jesty… "Although Jenner made no mention of Jesty in his writing, it should be noted that he rarely gave credit to the work of predecessors. These included his friend John Fewster, who had discussed cowpox with Jenner at length. Fewster must have influenced Jenner, rather than the dairymaid fable created by Jenner’s biographer John Baron, which has now been discounted. After Jenner’s death, much of his correspondence was burned without permission by Sir Everard Home, but recent scrutiny of associated communications with practitioners in Dorset indicates ways that he could have had knowledge of Jesty…. In 1807, Jenner had published a sevenfold classification of the human intellect, and it is clear from his “fair summary of the common eighteenth century wisdom on mental attitudes” that, believing himself descended from gentry (Baron Kenelem Jenour), he would never have acknowledged a tenant farmer from the “middling sort” class as having the intelligence to conceive and perform a vaccination procedure."But Jesty wasn’t the only one who felt stiffed. There was also a French hospital founder who was cut out. Jacques Antoine Rabaut-Pommier (depicted below) worked out cowpox vaccinations in 1780–84, fifteen years before Jenner.“ His plans to test his observations were interrupted by the French Revolution. However, “through a mutual friend, a Bristol merchant named James Ireland, Rabaut-Pommier passed his observations to an English physician, Dr. Pugh, who promised to pass them on to his colleague Edward Jenner, who was interested in the same problem. After the publication of Jenner's book on vaccination (1798), Rabaut was surprised not to find in it any reference to the suggestions he had made.” In the 19th century the French claimed to have discovered vaccinations before Jenner based on the story of Rabaut-Pommier, but the claim was ignored by the English and everyone else.Throughout this narrative, the word “innocuation” was carefully used as a generic term. Other terms in this story include “vaccination” and “variolation.” Sorting them out is part of the story. During Jenner’s time, the experiments caused the situation to change, so it could be confusing and he felt the need to distinguish what he did. Innoculation is a general term that can be applied to technique pioneered by the earlier Chinese physicians. What they did and everything prior to Jesty/ Rabaut-Pommier/ Jenner involved the use of live smallpox virus itself. Innoculation could also be applied to what Jesty did, but that involved the use of live cowpox virus. Understandably, a distinction became important. Jenner credited his friend and fellow physician, Richard Dunning, with combining “vacca” the the Latin root for “cow” with innocuation and came up with the term “vaccination,” which we continue to use today. But Jenner didn’t stop there. He also wanted a more specific term for the older kind of innoculation, so he combined “variola,” the name of the smallpox virus, with innoculation and came up with the term “variolation.” That distinction was important back in the turn of the 1800–1805 period. But in reading more modern sources one encounters the term “variolation” applied to the old Chinese-based method — that’s fine for being clear about things, but again, that term was invented AFTER Jenner’s experiment by Jenner. It’s a useful distinction for everyone because variolation isn’t completely safe but vaccination is — and it was personally useful for Jenner back then because he needed that ruling on Originality.Jenner tried to take the credit, he succeeded, and went down in history as the guy who conquered smallpox. But he “discovered” something essentially the same as was being done for the previous 800 years outside of Europe, and he “discovered” something that was openly discussed before and during his time, and actually performed right in his own back yard 25 years earlier by Jesty the Dorset farmer.Sources:Gross CP, Sepkowitz KA. The myth of the medical breakthrough: Smallpox, vaccination, and Jenner reconsidered Int J Infect Dis 3(1):54-60, 1998. PubMed PMID: 9831677. (PDF download is free, open source)Pead PJ, Vaccination's Forgotten Origins. Pediatrics 139(4):e20162833, 2017. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-2833. PMID: 28270548 (PDF download is free, open source)Pauli GC. Vaccination before Jenner. British Medical Journal 2:871, 1895. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.1814.871-bMilton DK. What was the primary mode of smallpox transmission? Implications for biodefense. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2:150, 2012. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2012.00150. PMID: 23226686 (PDF download is free, open source)David Perlin, D and Cohen A. “Smallpox 12,000 Years of Terrror” and “Variolation: the earliest smallpox vaccines.” The Complete Idiot's Guide to Dangerous Diseases and Epidemics, 2002Filsinger AL, Dwek R. “George Washington and the First Mass Military Innoculation”. Science Reference Services, US Library of Congress, 2009Wikipedia, VariolationLing, G. Origin of smallpox vaccinationTheodorides, J. Rabaut-Pommier, A neglected Precursor Of Jenner. Medical History, 1979, 23: 479-480.

I think your question might be a bit old, because as of right now, the latest version out there is the 60th edition (of Current Medical Diagnosis and Treatment 2021) which is also available in PDF and you can download it from the link above.The authors of this great medical reference ebook are Professor Stephen McPhee, Dr. Maxine Papadakis, and Dr. Michael Rabow.P.S It was published in 2020 (the series is always names 1 year ahead of when it was published, for e.g. the 2019 one was actually published on Sept 2018)Hope this helps