RESUMO
The population of people with physical or sensory disabilities is growing, yet they are underrepresented in the medical and other health professions. At the same time, there is a clear need to enhance didactic curricular content and clinical training experiences that explicitly address the full scope of medical needs that individuals with disabilities have. These gaps represent missed opportunities to advance the health of an important, underserved, and growing population. Based on the authors' experience, the inclusion of people with physical or sensory disabilities in medical education greatly enhances the education of all learners and the professional development of faculty and staff, providing invaluable perspectives on the significant abilities of individuals with diverse physical or sensory disabilities. There are additional efforts and costs associated with the education of a medical student who is blind, is deaf, uses a wheelchair, or has another disability. But based on the authors' experience, it is clear that the societal return on investment is enormous, and the costs associated with a failure to embrace full inclusivity are much greater. Medical education institutions should recognize the population of people with disabilities as a vital component of their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion and strive to provide inclusive education for learners with disabilities.
Assuntos
Pessoas com Deficiência , Educação Médica , Estudantes de Medicina , Docentes , HumanosAssuntos
Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis/tendências , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Política de Saúde/tendências , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Faculdades de Medicina , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Wisconsin/epidemiologiaRESUMO
The linear non-threshold (LNT) dose response model for cancer risk assessment has been a controversial concept since its initial proposal during the 1930s. It was long advocated by the radiation genetics community in the 1950s, some two decades prior to being generally adopted within the chemical toxicology community. This paper explores possible reasons for such major differences in the acceptance of LNT for cancer risk assessment by these two key groups of scientists.
