to snoo-finity ... and beyond!
Welcome to taway's page.
Contributor score: 7
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.
I think you meant 2(29/30)(1/30) just to clarify!
You have to use the hardy weinberg formula (1=p^2+2qp+q^2)and p + q = 1 they basically tell you that q^2=1/900 which makes q=1/30 now you can figure out (p=1-q) so p=1-(1/30), p=29/30 then to figure out carrier you solve for 2qp, 2(29/30)(1/30)=1/15 I got it wrong cuz I forgot how to figure out p but hopefully wont happen on the real deal.
2pq= 2(29/30)(1/30).... Transform this to 2 1 1 2 1
x x = _ = ____
1 1 30 30 15
Nevermind :/ It didn't come out as planned :(
I think that this question is phrased atrociously,
Just like the rest of the NBME