Welcome to jcrll’s page.
Contributor score: 12
"live-born offspring" ← baited
why is it 50% females tho?
felt like an idiot after i figured out why i got this wrong.
This isn't exactly right as males can still be born as evidenced by individuals III 6,9,11. This basically an x-linked recessive disease. A carrier mother can still pass her normal X chromosome to a son (50% chance). It's just that the other 50% chance of passing an affected X chromosome results in death of the fetus in utero. Thus all males actually born will not be affected.
@suckitnbme, Correct, but if you're a live-born male, you 100% for sure do NOT have the disease, so the chance of a live-born male "being affected" is 0.
@suckitnbme it's not X-linked recessive, otherwise every single son would be affected and therefore have died in utero. It's X-linked dominant
I think it's about adding our opinion and more about seeing what the situation is because a patient contacted you in distress. The others are about contacting management off hearsay; that could also "muddy the waters," I Is this question also addressing quaternary prevention?
I agree with jcrll.
My same thought process but then I changed it to psychiatric consultation in order to first attend the patient's distress and anxiety since it was hindering her decision making.
Besides, the whole ordeal about her treatments and ineffectiveness was emotionally and physically exhausting her.
Going straight to the chair of the ethics committee without having spoken to the other physicians would be inappropriate because it would be jumping a bunch of steps in communication first - like jcrll said, you want to get the picture of what's going on from the other physicians first. Maybe the gynecologic oncologist isn't actually as opposed to palliative measures as the patient perceives him to be and thinks he's doing what the patient wants, etc. It could just be miscommunication, which you could help clear up without getting ethics involved ... better to start there.