Employment after a breast cancer diagnosis: a qualitative study of ethnically diverse urban women.

Employment status is related to treatment recovery and quality of life in breast cancer survivors, yet little is known about return to work in immigrant and minority survivors. We conducted an exploratory qualitative study using ethnically cohesive focus groups of urban breast cancer survivors who were African-American, African-Caribbean, Chinese, Filipina, Latina, or non-Latina white. We audio- and video-recorded, transcribed, and thematically coded the focus group discussions and we analyzed the coded transcripts within and across ethnic groups. Seven major themes emerged related to the participants' work experiences after diagnosis: normalcy, acceptance, identity, appearance, privacy, lack of flexibility at work, and employer support. Maintaining a sense of normalcy was cited as a benefit of working by survivors in each group. Acceptance of the cancer diagnosis was most common in the Chinese group and in participants who had a family history of breast cancer; those who described this attitude were likely to continue working throughout the treatment period. Appearance was important among all but the Chinese group and was related to privacy, which many thought was necessary to derive the benefit of normalcy at work. Employer support included schedule flexibility, medical confidentiality, and help maintaining a normal work environment, which was particularly important to our study sample. Overall, we found few differences between the different ethnic groups in our study. These results have important implications for the provision of support services to and clinical management of employed women with breast cancer, as well as for further large-scale research in disparities and employment outcomes.

Beyond informed consent: the therapeutic misconception and trust.

The therapeutic misconception has been seen as presenting an ethical problem because failure to distinguish the aims of research participation from those receiving ordinary treatment may seriously undermine the informed consent of research subjects. Hence, most theoretical and empirical work on the problems of the therapeutic misconception has been directed to evaluate whether, and to what degree, this confusion invalidates the consent of subjects. We argue here that this focus on the understanding component of informed consent, while important, might be too narrow to capture the ethical complexity of the therapeutic misconception. We show that concerns about misplaced trust and exploitation of such trust are also relevant, and ought to be taken into account, when considering why the therapeutic misconception matters ethically.

Firing up the nature/nurture controversy: bioethics and genetic determinism.

It is argued here that bioethicists might inadvertently be promoting genetic determinism: the idea that genes alone determine human traits and behaviours. Discussions about genetic testing are used to exemplify how they might be doing so. Quite often bioethicists use clinical cases to support particular moral obligations or rights as if these cases were representative of the kind of information we can acquire about human diseases through genetic testing, when they are not. On other occasions, the clinical cases are presented in simplistic ways that portray genetic testing as yielding information more accurate than it actually is. It is concluded that, because of the problematic implications that the ideology of genetic determinism might have for individuals' wellbeing and for our public policies, bioethicists should be careful to present these issues in ways that do not promote questionable ideas about the causal role of genes in human diseases and behaviours.