Determining spinal level using the
inferior angle of the scapula as a
reference landmark: a retrospective
analysis of 50 radiographs.
The William and Jo Harris Building on Palmer
College’s Davenport Campus houses the Palmer
Center for Chiropractic Research. Studies are
also conducted separately by faculty on all three
of Palmer’s campuses. |
AUTHORS: Michael Haneline, D.C., M.P.H.; Robert
Cooperstein, D.C., M.A.; Morgan Young, B.S.; and
Justin Ross, R.N., D.C.
The purpose of this study was to determine which spinal segment
most closely corresponds to the level of the inferior
angle of the scapula (IAS) using measurements taken on A-P
full-spine radiographs. Fifty sequentially selected radiographs
were analyzed independently by two examiners. A straight
edge was used to ascertain which spinal levels corresponded
with the right and left IASs. For analysis, each spinal level
was subdivided into three regions: upper vertebral body,
lower vertebral body, and intervertebral space. We found that
the mean spinal level corresponding to the left IAS was midway
between the T8-9 interspace and the upper T9 body
(range, lower T7 to upper T10). The mean spinal level corresponding
to the right IAS was slightly lower, but still within
the upper T9 body (range, lower T7 to lower T10). These
levels correspond to the T8 spinous process. We conclude
that there is a considerable amount of variability in where
the IASs are located, but most commonly, they correspond
to the level of the upper body of T9.
(The full abstract of this study was published in the Journal of
the Canadian Chiropractic Association 2008, Volume 52,
Issue 1, pages 24-49.)
The four principles of biomedical
ethics: A foundation for current
bioethical debate.
AUTHOR: Dana Lawrence, D.C., M.M.E.
In this paper, Dr. Lawrence provides an overview of the four
principles originally developed by Thomas Beauchamp and
James Childress that are now used in modern bioethical decision-
making and debate, and he describes several challenges
to their premier status in bioethics. The four principles that
form the core of modern bioethics discussion include autonomy,
beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice. Autonomy
addresses the issue of consent and freedom of choice; justice
the fair allocation of health care resources; and beneficence
and nonmaleficence the question of risk versus benefit. The
originators of these principles claim that none is more important
than another, yet challenges have been laid against these
principles on that basis as well as on other areas of disagreement.
This paper looks at the nature of the most significant
of those challenges. The four principles have withstood
challenge now for nearly 30 years and still form the basis for
most decision making in both the research setting and in
clinical practice within the chiropractic profession. However,
professional understanding of the principles is not known
and may provide a fertile area for further investigation.
(The full abstract of this study was published in the Journal of
Chiropractic Humanities 2007, Volume 14, pages 34-40.)