Ethical decision making by Canadian family physicians.

Canadian family physicians were sent questionnaires that asked how they would handle the ethical problems posed by six sample cases and what reasons were relevant to their decisions. The ethical problems concerned how much information to divulge to patients, how extensively a physician should become involved in the lifestyles of patients and how to deal with a possible family problem. The study identified characteristics of family physicians that affect their ethical decision making and tested a theoretical model that regards ethical problems as conflicts between respecting patient autonomy and promoting patient welfare. The varied responses suggested that ethical issues are resolved on a case-by-case, rather than a theoretical, basis. Certification in family medicine was the only characteristic associated with a consistent pattern of responses; certificants were more likely than other physicians to involve patients in decisions.     

Screening for gestational diabetes: an evidence-based approach

The primary goal of medicine should be to improve the health of patients. Evidence-based medicine is the utilization of evidence from studies published in the medical literature to help clinicians make decisions with and for their patients. Ideally the evidence should be patient-oriented, demonstrating improvements in actual patient outcomes, not just physiologic parameters or other intermediate endpoints. This concept is important in making decisions about screening tests, since this is how clinicians can determine if the screening test will actually improve patients' (and in the case of obstetrics, the neonates') outcomes. The purpose of this article is to examine screening for gestational diabetes from this perspective, discuss the current recommendations, and make suggestions for its utilization in clinical care.     

Discussing breast cancer risk in primary care

Options for managing breast cancer risk now include screening, genetic testing, lifestyle modification, medication, and surgery. A woman's knowledge of her risk factors for breast cancer, her perceptions of that risk, and her concerns about cancer all shape her decisions about cancer screening and prevention. Physicians should involve women patients in making informed screening decisions, while reviewing their health risks and the benefits and risks associated with different courses of action. All women should be involved in this process, with special attention to older socioeconomically disadvantaged women, who are frequently left out of such discussions. Physicians can play a major role in reducing cancer disparities and the corresponding rates of breast cancer morbidity and mortality by keeping current in their knowledge of risk assessment, broadening the range of patients with whom they communicate about risk, and enhancing their communication skills to address diverse patient needs.     

Bioethics for clinicians: 2. Disclosure.

In the context of patient consent, "disclosure" refers to the provision of relevant information by the clinician and its comprehension by the patient. Both elements are necessary for valid consent. Disclosure should inform the patient adequately about the treatment and its expected effects, relevant alternative options and their benefits and risks, and the consequences of declining or delaying treatment. The clinician's goal is to disclose information that a reasonable person in the patient's position would need in order to make an informed decision. Therefore, clinicians may need to consider how the proposed treatment (and other options) might affect the patient's employment, finances, family life and other personal concerns. Clinicians may also need to be sensitive to cultural and religious beliefs that can affect disclosure.     

The evaluation of the risks and benefits of phase II cancer clinical trials by institutional review board (IRB) members: a case study

OBJECTIVES: There are indications that institutional review board (IRB) members do not find it easy to assess the risks and benefits in medical experiments, although this is their principal duty. This study examined how IRB members assessed the risk/benefit ratio (RBR) of a specific phase II breast cancer clinical trial. Participants and METHODS: The trial was evaluated by means of a questionnaire administered to 43 members of IRBs at six academic hospitals and specialised cancer centres in the Netherlands. The questionnaire addressed: identification and estimation of inconvenience, toxicity, psychosocial distress, and benefits of trial participation to patients; identification and estimation of benefits to future patients and medical science; assessment of the trial's RBR; and assessment of its ethical acceptability. RESULTS: Most IRB members expected trial participation to involve fairly or very serious inconvenience, fairly severe to sometimes life-threatening toxicity, and serious psychological and social consequences. Conversely, the perceived likelihood of benefits to patients was modest. Most regarded the study as important, and the balance between risks and benefits to be favourable, and believed that the protocol should be approved. The IRB members' final judgement on the trial's ethical acceptability was significantly correlated with their RBR assessment of the protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Because most patients who participate in clinical trials hope this will prolong their lives, it is suggested that patient information should better describe the anticipated benefits-for example, the likelihood of prolonging life. This would allow patients to make decisions regarding participation based on realistic expectations.     

Withholding and withdrawing life support in critical care settings: ethical issues concerning consent

The right to refuse medical intervention is well established, but it remains unclear how best to respect and exercise this right in life support. Contemporary ethical guidelines for critical care give ambiguous advice, largely because they focus on the moral equivalence of withdrawing and withholding care without confronting the very real differences regarding who is aware and informed of intervention options and how patient values are communicated and enacted. In withholding care, doctors typically withhold information about interventions judged too futile to offer. They thus retain greater decision-making burden (and power) and face weaker obligations to secure consent from patients or proxies. In withdrawing care, there is a clearer imperative for the doctor to include patients (or proxies) in decisions, share information and secure consent, even when continued life support is deemed futile. How decisions to withhold and withdraw life support differ ethically in their implications for positive versus negative interpretations of patient autonomy, imperatives for consent, definitions of futility and the subjective evaluation of (and submission to) benefits and burdens of life support in critical care settings are explored. Professional reflection is required to respond to trends favouring a more positive interpretation of patient autonomy in the context of life support decisions in critical care. Both the bioethics and critical care communities should investigate the possibilities and limits of growing pressure for doctors to disclose their reasoning or seek patient consent when decisions to withhold life support are made.     

Perspective: Privacy policies for health social networking sites

Health social networking sites (HSNS), virtual communities where users connect with each other around common problems and share relevant health data, have been increasingly adopted by medical professionals and patients. The growing use of HSNS like Sermo and PatientsLikeMe has prompted public concerns about the risks that such online data-sharing platforms pose to the privacy and security of personal health data. This paper articulates a set of privacy risks introduced by social networking in health care and presents a practical example that demonstrates how the risks might be intrinsic to some HSNS. The aim of this study is to identify and sketch the policy implications of using HSNS and how policy makers and stakeholders should elaborate upon them to protect the privacy of online health data.     

Advocacy groups for breast cancer patients.

Breast cancer patient advocacy groups emerged in the 1990s to support and empower women with breast cancer. Women with cancer and oncologists tend to have divergent perspectives on how breast cancer prevention should be defined and what the priorities for research should be. As their American counterparts have done, breast cancer patient advocates in Canada are seeking greater participation in decision making with respect to research. To date they have had more input into research policy decisions than into the planning of specific projects. In 1993 the National Forum on Breast Cancer recommended that women with breast cancer should have more input into the research process; breast cancer patient advocates will continue to actively pursue this objective.     

Suicide by advance directive?

The medical response to suicide is generally resuscitation, followed by attempts to maximise the patient's recovery. Care is generally withdrawn when it is futile and there is no hope for recovery. Suicidal patients who have completed an advance directive may complicate matters. Should medical providers not resuscitate a patient with an advance directive who has attempted to commit suicide? If stated wishes for care are ignored in the emergency setting, how should decisions be made over time in the event of a successful resuscitation resulting in the need for prolonged therapy counter to the wishes of the advance directive? What are the merits of the stated the wishes of suicidal patient? What if they were depressed at the time of the advance directive? This case highlights the need for consideration of these and other concerns in the care of patients who commit suicide and have an advance directive.     

HIV infection: the challenge to general practitioners

The ability to control and treat the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic depends critically on care in the community, yet little is known about how primary care is responding to the challenge. The mere mention of AIDS raises huge anxieties for doctors as well as patients, and discussing sexual behavior rarely flows naturally from other aspects of routine consultations. Doctors should be discussing the risks of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections with most adults attending for immunizations for overseas travel and many patients consulting about contraception. With regard to actual tests for HIV antibodies, positive results found by general practitioners, especially in cases where there is no major risk factor, should be treated as false positives until confirmed by specialized tests. Doctors should seek to use each consultation to educate the patient about HIV infection.     

Socially and temporally extended end-of-life decision-making process for dementia patients

There are two contrasting views on the decision-making for life-sustaining treatment in advanced stages of dementia when the patient is deemed incompetent. One is to respect the patient's precedent autonomy by adhering to advance directives or using the substituted judgement standard. The other is to use the best-interests standard, particularly if the current judgement on what is best for the incapacitated patient contradicts the instructions from the patient's precedent autonomy. In this paper, I argue that the protracted clinical course of dementia over many years requires the extended perspective of a progressive decision-making process-extended in both social space and time. The ongoing debate between these two competing views has missed this perspective by focussing on an exclusive disjunction between the competent former self and the incompetent current self. Drawing on theories of situated cognition in cognitive science, I will show that the cognition of a demented patient can be viewed as extended and embodied by her supportive social environment. As the disease progresses, the content of the mind of a demented person becomes partially constituted by such external resources along with her diminishing intrinsic mind. With this understanding, medical decision-making for a demented patient can be construed as a temporally and socially extended practice. A collective decision-making body consisting of the patient, her family and surrogates, and the clinician, should make progressive decisions as a whole over years of the disease course. Finally, I will provide a practical example of how this proposal can be applied in clinical practice.     

Epistemic paternalism in public health

Receiving information about threats to one's health can contribute to anxiety and depression. In contemporary medical ethics there is considerable consensus that patient autonomy, or the patient's right to know, in most cases outweighs these negative effects of information. Worry about the detrimental effects of information has, however, been voiced in relation to public health more generally. In particular, information about uncertain threats to public health, from-for example, chemicals-are said to entail social costs that have not been given due consideration. This criticism implies a consequentialist argument for withholding such information from the public in their own best interest. In evaluating the argument for this kind of epistemic paternalism, the consequences of making information available must be compared to the consequences of withholding it. Consequences that should be considered include epistemic effects, psychological effects, effects on private decisions, and effects on political decisions. After giving due consideration to the possible uses of uncertain information and rebutting the claims that uncertainties imply small risks and that they are especially prone to entail misunderstandings and anxiety, it is concluded that there is a strong case against withholding of information about uncertain threats to public health.     

Medical futility and the critically ill patient

Today, the world of critical care medicine has given us the capabilities to accomplish things that were only dreamed of a few decades ago. When combined with the increasing importance of patient autonomy and economics in healthcare, these new capabilities have caused conflicts about what is too little, and what is too much. Medical futility becomes an issue whenever these conflicts arise. Understanding how to deal with issues surrounding futility begins with defining it. A firm definition is not possible or desirable, but revolves around the probability of being able to achieve a patient's goal with modern medicine. Establishing this understanding between the patient and their family (team), and the healthcare team, is dependent on trust between the two. It must be recognized that there are many reasons for families to not trust healthcare professionals and that these reasons need to be explored and dealt with. Sometimes conflicts regarding predictions and economics need to be addressed. Once trust is established a goal for a course of medical treatment should be discussed from the patient's perspective. This discussion should involve the physician's best judgement as to the chances of achieving this goal, and what type of discomfort or indignity, if any, the patient may experience. Only after these have been clearly discussed can decisions regarding medical futility be made. To date, the U. S. Courts have refused to grant physicians and hospitals the power to override the opinions of family members on matters of futility. However, with time, a consensus of public opinion should influence decisions regarding medical futility.     

Too Much or Too Little? How Much Control Should Patients Have Over EHR Data?

Electronic health records (EHRs) have been promoted as a mechanism to overcome the fragmented healthcare system in the United States. The challenge that is being discussed is the rights of the patient to control the access to their EHRs’ data and the needs of healthcare professionals to know health data to make the best treatment decisions for their patients. The Federal Trade Commission has asked those who store consumer information to comply with the Fair Information Practice Principles. In the EHR context, these principles give the rights to the patient to control who can see their health data and what components of the data are restricted from view. Control is not limited to patients, as it also includes parents of adolescent children. We suggest that the ongoing policy discussion include consideration of the precise questions patients will be asked when a need for data sharing arises. Further, patients should understand the relative risks that they face, and the degree to which their decisions will (or will not) significantly reduce the risk of a data breach. As various approaches are considered, it is important to address the relative resource requirements and the associated costs of each option.     

Physician-patient privilege: the legal assault continues.

The confidentiality of patient records, particularly in cases where sexual assault is alleged, has been called into question by two recent Supreme Court decisions. Toronto lawyer Marilou McPhedran discusses the recent Beharriell and O'Connor decisions and how they affect physicians.     

Just implementation of human papillomavirus vaccination

Many countries are now implementing human papillomavirus vaccination. There is disagreement about who should receive the vaccine. Some propose vaccinating both boys and girls in order to achieve the largest possible public health impact. Others regard this approach as too costly and claim that only girls should be vaccinated. We question the assumption that decisions about human papillomavirus vaccination policy should rely solely on estimates of overall benefits and costs. There are important social justice aspects that also need to be considered. Policy makers should consider how to best protect individuals who will remain unvaccinated through no fault of their own. This is especially important if these individuals are already disadvantaged in other ways and if vaccinating other people increases their risk of infection.     

Patient advocate or secret agent?

The "doctor knows best" standard of consent to care in England is held to be a possible early warning of changes to come in the United States as patient care is increasingly determined by economics and scarce resources. Political decisions not to pay for certain treatments or not to offer all technologies to all persons should not be disguised as medical decisions by not telling patients of possible therapies. Deception and failure to inform are violations of the physician's fiduciary relationship with the patient.     

2012 ESC《ST段抬高急性心肌梗死治疗指南》解读

本指南对写作过程中所有该领域可利用的证据进行总结和评估,为协助医师在日常实践中对每个不同情况的患者选择最佳诊断或治疗方案。和其他学会及组织一样,欧洲心脏学会（ESC）近年来发表并定期更新了大量指南。     

Radiation Protection in Canada: Part VII. Setting Standards for Radiation Protection

The current recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection have as a basic objective the limitation of the radiation dose to “that which involves a risk that is not unacceptable to the individual and to the population at large”. The problem is to decide what degree of risk is acceptable, in relation to the benefits of a practice that necessitates a radiation exposure. At the present time it is not possible to make more than very rough estimates of some of the risks of exposure to radiation, but such estimates can be usefully compared with some of the other risks that are tolerated by society. On the assumption that it would be possible to make quantitative assessments of both the benefits and the risks, the question is raised as to how and by whom an appropriate balance should be made.     

The premature breech: caesarean section or trial of labour?

Obstetricians face difficult decisions when the interests of fetus and mother conflict. An example is the problem of choosing the delivery method when labour begins prematurely and the fetus is breech. Vaginal delivery involves risks for the breech fetus of brain damage or death caused by umbilical cord compression and head entrapment. Caesarean section might avoid these dangers but involves risks for the mother, including infection, haemorrhage and even death in a small percentage of cases. If a caesarean section is performed the infant might die anyway, due to complications of prematurity. Thus, decisions about delivery method involve balancing the risks to mother and fetus. Uncertainty about the frequency of fetal injuries in vaginal breech deliveries adds to the difficulty of these decisions.