 tech firms taking AI global since 2013.
Quarterly updates on AI and ML applications that help you stay abreast of what's changing in your industry, function or areas of interest.
Discover insights, gain knowledge with short videos by your transformation Exec Peers and world class AI entrepreneurs.
Join as Special Guest to our partner, Europe's most active Deep Tech industry & investor community, Tech Tour.
You stay current, build a network of Peers and satisfy your quest for future-proof knowledge. Berkeley alumni hosted the first Growth 2.0 Lab in 2013 in Mountain View. Our 10 year track record bridging industry and tech firms is accelerating to help you keep pace with change.
My life is about the global community….And that is who is here.
The quality of the people that are assembled.…at a very personal, very familiar level….is just fantastic.
Samsung looks forward to being involved for many years to come.The textbook answer would have been straightforward: No additional chemotherapy. Focus on palliative care.
But Max (not his real name) was not a textbook case. He was a person, and he was terrified of dying.
When I met him in clinic, four lines of chemotherapy had not slowed the spread of his rare cancer that was already metastatic at the time of diagnosis. His skin was yellow. His hair had fallen out in clumps. His legs were swollen to the point that he couldn’t walk. He had trouble transferring from his wheelchair on his own.
All this was offset by the college hoodie he wore, a disarming display of his youth. I had to look at the chart to remind myself. He was only 19 years old.
“Will Dr. D give Max chemotherapy?” his mother asked me, referring to the attending oncologist who had been caring for her son since the beginning. “I think he needs it right away,” she said. She was holding back tears.
Protected by the fact that I was a visiting fellow in her clinic for the day, and I was just meeting Max, I deferred the decision to Dr. D.
Dr. D and I reviewed Max’s case outside the room, scrolling through his PET scans showing spread of cancer in his liver, lungs, and bones in only 2 short months. We recounted the multiple lines of chemotherapy and immunotherapy he had tried and that had failed him.
Palliative care? I offered. She agreed.
But as we went back in together, it was harder. Max’s mother began to cry as Dr. D tried to broach the option. To her, palliative care meant death. That was not something she could swallow. Her questions turned back only to the next chemotherapy we would be giving.
I learned that Max’s father worked in a hospital. He knew how serious it was. “He calls me every day, crying,” my attending later told me solemnly. Begging her to do something. Pleading for more chemotherapy.
After some painful back and forth in the room, we didn’t come to a resolution. Dr. D would call them later, she said.
It was a busy clinic day, and we saw the rest of her patients.
“What are we going to do about Max?” I asked at the end of the day. I was writing the note in his chart. We still didn’t have a plan.
More chemotherapy, from any technical and data-based standpoint, was not the right choice. We had no evidence it would improve survival. We did have evidence that it could worsen the quality of life when time was limited. If we gave him more chemotherapy, it would be beyond guidelines, beyond evidence. We would be off the grid.
I thought about the conversations I’d been privy to about giving toxic therapies near the end of life. While a handful felt productive, others were uncomfortably strained. The latter involved a tension that manifests when the goals of the patient and the oncologist are misaligned. The words may be slightly different each time, but the theme is the same.
The oncologist says: “More chemotherapy is not going to work.”
The patient says: “But we don’t know. It’s better than doing nothing. Can’t we try?”
This can be excruciatingly challenging because both sides are correct. Both sides are logical, and yet they are talking past each other.
From the point of view of the person desperate to survive, anything is worth a try. Without trying some form of treatment, there’s a zero percent chance of surviving. Low odds of something working are still better than zero percent odds.
But it’s not an issue of logic. For people like Max’s parents, the questions come from a place of helplessness. The cognitive dissonance sets in because our job is to help and we struggle when we feel we cannot. We want to say yes. I wish we had a treatment to slow Max’s cancer, too. I wish more chemotherapy would help him.
What I’ve learned from these conversations is the importance of defining terms. Specifically, what do we mean when we say a treatment will or will not “work”? What are we trying to achieve? To prolong life by weeks? By months or years? To make your pain go away? To help you feel stronger? To allow you to spend time doing what you love?
The relevant question is not: Will this treatment work? It is: What are your goals, and will this treatment help you achieve them?
Defining terms in that way can mean the difference of a conversation where two sides are talking past one another to one that comes to a mutual understanding – even if the ultimate conclusion is painful for everyone.
Yet sometimes, even for the most skilled communicators, there may be compromise. There may be an agreement to trial Nth-line chemotherapy, even without evidence that it will achieve a person’s goals. It will require nuanced informed consent from both sides. And it will come from a place of compassion.
This is what I thought about as I signed chemotherapy orders for Max that evening. I felt for him, for his parents, and for his oncologist.
Because even though I suspected the treatment wouldn’t work the way they all hoped it would, I also wasn’t the one fielding daily phone calls from a father, begging his oncologist to do something, anything at all, to save his son’s life.
Dr. Yurkiewicz is a fellow in hematology and oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University. Follow her on Twitter @ilanayurkiewicz.How the bill specifically addresses timeliness and program waitlists, however, “remains to be drafted,” according to Cassidy’s office. A copy of the legislation, which has not yet been assigned a bill number, is not yet available for review.
“When testing can take place months after coursework, processing takes months, and waitlists are enormous, it’s hardly an educational opportunity,” reads a statement from Cassidy’s office.
Out of 48,921 inmates in June 2014, 19.7 percent were high school graduates and 19.2 percent had a GED, according to the IDOC’s FY2014 Annual Report – the most recent data available. More than 44 percent of inmates had an eleventh grade education or lower at that time.
In the state’s 2014 fiscal year, 5,618 inmates participated in the GED program, while 920 completed the process, according to IDOC.
Between July 2014 and March 2015, IDOC had 2,055 inmates participate in GED education courses, while 1,268 inmates were on a waitlist. Only 102 inmates were listed as having completed the GED program during that period.
As it stands, offenders who enter IDOC with a two-year sentence or more are given the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) exam and must score a 9.0 or above for GED program entry. Inmates with a TABE score of 6.0 to 9.0 can enter the Pre-GED program and those who do not score above a 6.0 are mandated to Adult Basic Education (ABE). Potential students are then placed on a waitlist, which is prioritized by inmate release date.
In 2013, IDOC switched from paper and pencil exams to online testing, in accordance with new federal standards. That switch, which required the purchase and installation of computers and a secure network, resulted in an “extensive” delay in testing, IDOC spokeswoman Nicole Wilson said in a statement. Staffing and budget limitations have also contributed to the waitlists at some IDOC facilities.
Ralph Edwards, who earned his GED while he was incarcerated in 1999, said he was on a waitlist for five years during his eight-year sentence.
“I used to have to wait on guys to get in trouble or transfer, so it could open up a spot,” Edwards said, adding that he was one of “hundreds of guys” on the waitlist at Hill Correctional Center in Galesburg. Once he got in the class, Edwards said he studied for six or seven hours every day and ultimately passed the GED test with the highest score of his class.
“The only way to get a GED when I was in prison was to get on the waitlist, then just wait,” he said.
When Edwards was released from prison in 2002, he later worked as a program manager for CeaseFire. He said he wants that opportunity for all incarcerated individuals.
“When inmates aren’t rehabilitated with education like I was, there’s a high chance of going back,” Edwards said.
The average cost associated with one recidivism event in Illinois is $118,746, according to a 2015 study from the Illinois Sentencing Policy