What are the symptoms of prostate cancer?

Published41 minutes agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Getty ImagesBy Michelle RobertsDigital health editorSir Chris Hoy, six-time Olympic cycling champion, has revealed he has advanced prostate cancer. The 48-year-old says the cancer has spread to his bones and is terminal. Tributes have poured in and charities say raising awareness of the disease could help save other lives. Prostate cancers can behave very differently. While some can spread quickly, others are very slow growing and may need minimal or even no treatment.What is prostate cancer?The prostate is a gland that is about the size of a walnut which sits just below the bladder within the pelvis.It surrounds the urethra – the tube that takes urine out of the body through the penis.Prostate cancer – abnormal and uncontrolled cell growth – often develops slowly. There may be no signs or symptoms for years and some people never develop any problems from it.But in others, the cancer can be aggressive and deadly.Prostate cancer that’s detected early has the best chance for successful treatment.Image source, Getty ImagesHow common is prostate cancer?One in six men will get prostate cancer at some point in their lives, says Cancer Research UK. It is most common in older age – among men over 75. Cases in the under-50s are rare.Men whose father or brother were affected by prostate cancer are at slightly increased risk.It is also more common in black men.Prostate Cancer UK has a 30-second online risk checker,

Read more →

States Revive Lawsuit to Sharply Curb Access to Abortion Pill

The Supreme Court ruled in June that the original plaintiffs, anti-abortion doctors and groups, did not have standing to sue. Now three states are trying to continue the legal fight.A lawsuit seeking to sharply restrict the abortion pill mifepristone — a case the Supreme Court threw out this year — has re-emerged in a version that presents new challenges for abortion-rights supporters and the federal government’s ability to regulate abortion medication.The revised lawsuit was filed this month by the conservative state attorneys general of three states — Missouri, Idaho and Kansas — against the Food and Drug Administration in the same federal district court in Texas as the original case. It seeks to reverse numerous regulatory changes the F.D.A. has made since 2016 that greatly expanded access to mifepristone.It also asks for new restrictions, including to outlaw the medication for anyone under 18. And it takes aim at the fast-growing practice of prescribing abortion pills through telemedicine and mailing them to patients, including those in states with abortion bans.In the United States, abortion pills are prescribed up to 12 weeks into pregnancy and are now used in nearly two-thirds of abortions. The typical regimen involves mifepristone, which blocks a hormone needed for pregnancy development, followed 24 to 48 hours later by misoprostol, which causes contractions like a miscarriage. Decades of research has found the pills to be overwhelmingly safe, and serious complications rare.The original lawsuit, filed in 2022 by anti-abortion doctors and groups, was rejected in June by the Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling. The court said that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue because they couldn’t show they had been harmed by the F.D.A.’s decisions on mifepristone. But that ruling didn’t extinguish the case’s chance of being revived.Last year, Missouri, Idaho and Kansas petitioned to join the suit at the lower court level and were granted the status of intervenors. The states were denied permission to intervene at the Supreme Court level, but after the original plaintiffs’ claims were rejected, the states remained part of the lower court case, and this month they filed an amended complaint as plaintiffs.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Read more →

Biden to Propose That Insurers Cover Over-the-Counter Birth Control

The new rules under the Affordable Care Act would include emergency contraception, a newly approved nonprescription birth control pill, spermicides and condoms.The White House announced on Monday that it would propose new rules under the Affordable Care Act that would require insurers to cover over-the-counter birth control at no cost to patients, as it seeks to expand access to contraception and cut out-of-pocket costs.The rules would include emergency contraception, a newly approved nonprescription birth control pill, spermicides and condoms and would affect 52 million American women of reproductive age who rely on private health insurance. They will be subject to a 60-day public comment period and, if finalized, would represent “the most significant expansion of contraception benefits” in more than a decade, said Jennifer Klein, the director of the White House Gender Policy Council.The proposal comes just two weeks before the election as Democrats, including Vice President Kamala Harris, make the case that the threat to reproductive rights extends beyond the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, that eliminated the national right to abortion.“At a time when contraception access is under attack, Vice President Harris and I are resolute in our commitment to expanding access to quality, affordable contraception,” President Biden said in a statement. “We believe that women in every state must have the freedom to make deeply personal health care decisions, including the right to decide if and when to start or grow their family.”The court ruled in that case that the “right to privacy” did not confer a right to abortion. In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the same rationale should be used to overturn other “demonstrably erroneous decisions” that relied on a right to privacy, including Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 case declaring that married couples had a right to contraception.“Clarence Thomas said the quiet part out loud, that contraception could very much be at risk and it is at risk,” Ms. Harris told the late-night host Jimmy Kimmel in June.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Read more →

In L.A., Street Psychiatrists Offer the Homeless a Radical Step Forward

In a downtown Los Angeles parking lot, a stretch of asphalt tucked between gleaming hotels and the 110 freeway, a psychiatrist named Shayan Rab was seeing his third patient of the day, a man he knew only as Yoh.Yoh lived in the underpass, his back pressed against the wall, a few feet from the rush of cars exiting the freeway. He made little effort to fend for himself, even to find food or water. When outreach workers dropped off supplies, he often let people walk away with them.He could barely converse, absorbed by an inner world that he described in fragments: a journey to Eden, a supersonic train, a slab of concrete hanging in space.But here he was, seated on a stool in the parking lot, talking to his psychiatrist. Two weeks earlier, Dr. Rab had persuaded Yoh to start an oral antipsychotic medication. Now the doctor wanted to go further.“One thing that can make your life a little bit easier,” he said. “We have the same medication that comes as a monthly injection, so you only have to take it once. Is that something you’d be interested in? It’s better for you.”“Yeah,” said Yoh, dreamily. His hair was matted, his ankles caked with dirt. He hadn’t slept well, he said, because he had been visited by a poltergeist.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Read more →