Quality of Life Research

, Volume 5, Issue 6, pp 568–571 | Cite as

The Internet: A modern Pandora's Box?

  • M. Mayer
  • J. E. TillEmail author


Two different views of the internet are presented. One is from the perspective of an author who has written a personal account of her own breast cancer experience, while the other is from the perspective of a cancer researcher who is interested in quality of life research. The article is written in a format that reflects the somewhat informal style of messages sent to Internet discussion groups. For better or worse, the Internet has arrived as a force in our lives, and medical information and support constitute two of its more important uses. Both authors agree that the novel medium of the Internet provides a unique opportunity to create a true partnership of health care providers and consumers.

Key words

Communication Internet psychosocial support quality of life 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991: 1050.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology. London: Hamlyn Publishing Group, 1959: 93.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coiera E.. The Internet's challenge to health care provision. BMJ 1996; 312: 3–4.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kassirer JP, Angell M. The Internet and the Journal. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 1709–1710.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mayer M. Examining myself: one woman's story of breast cancer treatment and recovery. Boston: Faber & Faber, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mayer M. The breast cancer listserv: a virtual community. List archives of,, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Till JE, McCulloch EA, Siminovitch L. A stochastic model of stem cell proliferation, based on the growth of spleen colony-forming cells. Proc Nat Acad Sci 1964; 51: 29–36.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Till JE. Quality of life measurements in cancer treatment. In: DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, eds. Important Advances in Oncology 1992. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1992: 189–204.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stoll C. Silicon snake oil: second thoughts on the information highway. New York: Doubleday, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tukle S. Life on the screen: identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Shuster, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Negroponte N. Being digital. New York: Knopf, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Till JE. Discussion groups on the Internet: journaling. Can J Oncol 1995; 5: 379–380.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    US National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1978.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Rapid Science Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Epidemiology and StatisticsThe Ontario Cancer InstituteTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations