Are general practitioners prepared to share information about their patients and their work?

A questionnaire survey of the 44 general practices in Central Nottinghamshire Health District elicited 43 responses. Ten scenarios on sharing information were graded on a five point scale by each practice according to its willingness to share the information. Responses varied from 41 practices that would at least "probably" give the number of their young chronic sick patients to the local district health authority to 17 practices that were positive towards sharing with a local charity the names of elderly patients living alone. This second example raises profound issues of confidentiality. The extent to which practices were prepared theoretically to share practice generated information with outside bodies was generally high and showed a willingness to do so if the reasons were sound and the requesting body was acceptable.     

Prions: who should worry about them?

Prion diseases, also called transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), are a family of neurodegenerative disorders affecting both humans and animals. They are caused by the accumulation of an abnormal form of a protein known as prion that results in neuronal death and a characteristic spongiform appearance of the brain tissue. Human prion diseases can be sporadic, acquired or hereditary. Acquired prion diseases have been linked to entering contaminated food into the human food chain, failure to completely disinfect or sterilize contaminated surgical instruments, patients receiving tissues and organs from infected donors, recipients of blood and other biological contaminated products, and potentially to cross infection in dental procedures. At present, there is unfortunately no efficient therapy that can be administered to clinically infected patients with prion diseases. Moreover, there are no simple diagnostic tests that can be used to show the agent of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy during the preclinical phase of the disease. Therefore, to prevent the spread of this emerging infectious agent it is necessary to implement several health control strategies and maintain surveillance for subclinical infections.     

What do patients,their relatives and medical staff know about genetic therapy?

Objectives: To investigate the knowledge of, and attitudes towards gene therapy of cancer patients, their relatives, and the staff treating the patients. Design: Cross sectional questionnaire study. Subjects: a) One hundred patients with ovarian cancer either 1) in current treatment with chemotherapy, or 2) in follow up after chemotherapy. b) The relatives accompanying these patients to clinic. c) Fifty doctors and fifty nurses at the hospital in question. Main outcome measures: Knowledge about genes and gene therapy, attitudes toward gene therapy and its introduction in the NHS, willingness to accept additional side-effects for a given-therapeutic gain. Results: Patients and relatives have only limited knowledge about genes and gene therapy, but knowledge is also limited about how chemotherapy works. The attitude towards gene therapy is positive, and the worry about gene therapy being like 'playing God' is accepted by less than 10%. There is a strong belief that if gene therapy is effective it should be paid by the NHS (over 85% agree with this).     

Should children's autonomy be respected by telling them of their imminent death?

Respect for an individual's autonomy determines that doctors should inform patients if their illness is terminal. This becomes complicated when the terminal diagnosis is recent and death is imminent. The authors examine the admission to paediatric intensive care of an adolescent with terminal respiratory failure. While fully ventilated, the patient was kept sedated and comfortable but when breathing spontaneously he was capable of non-verbal communication and understanding. Once resedated and reintubated, intense debate ensued over whether to wake the patient to tell him he was going to die. The authors discuss the ethical arguments that surrounded their decision.     

Statins: Can we advocate them for primary prevention of heart disease?

The discovery of cholesterol-lowering agents, namely HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors or statins, ushered in a series of large cholesterol reduction trials. The first of these studies was the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) in which hypercholesterolemic men with CHD who were treated with simvastatin had a reduction in major coronary events of 44% and a reduction in total mortality of 30%. Many more secondary prevention trials followed to establish unequivocally the benefit of cholesterol reduction. Strategies that aim to improve primary prevention are important for managing the overall burden of disease. Recently therefore, the role of statin in primary prevention is being debated. The JUPITER trial and more recently the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists collaborators, proved that incidences of first major cardiovascular events in apparently healthy individuals were reduced by statins. Statins have also been discussed to be having certain pleiotropic effects on other diseases like diabetes, cancer and osteoporosis. However, issues of cost effectiveness and adverse effects like myositis, and transaminitis still loom large. The medical community needs to debate and evolve a possible consensus on the path breaking subject.     

Statins: Can we advocate them for primary prevention of heart disease?

The discovery of cholesterol-lowering agents, namely HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors or statins, ushered in a series of large cholesterol reduction trials. The first of these studies was the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) in which hypercholesterolemic men with CHD who were treated with simvastatin had a reduction in major coronary events of 44% and a reduction in total mortality of 30%. Many more secondary prevention trials followed to establish unequivocally the benefit of cholesterol reduction. Strategies that aim to improve primary prevention are important for managing the overall burden of disease. Recently therefore, the role of statin in primary prevention is being debated. The JUPITER trial and more recently the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists collaborators, proved that incidences of first major cardiovascular events in apparently healthy individuals were reduced by statins. Statins have also been discussed to be having certain pleiotropic effects on other diseases like diabetes, cancer and osteoporosis. However, issues of cost effectiveness and adverse effects like myositis, and transaminitis still loom large. The medical community needs to debate and evolve a possible consensus on the path breaking subject.     

Can patients be sure they are fully informed when representatives of surgical equipment manufacturers attend their operations?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the practice in UK hospitals regarding the level of patient involvement and consent when representatives of commercial surgical device manufacturers attend and advise during operations. METHODS: An anonymous postal questionnaire was sent to the senior nurse in charge in all 236 UK gynaecology theatres in 2004. 79/236 (33%) replies were received. RESULTS: Operating departments were visited every 2 weeks on average by a representative of the surgical device manufacturer. Actual operations were attended every 10 weeks, although there was much variation. 33/79 (42%) units consistently obtained patient consent for visits, usually orally, whereas 40/79 (51%) units did not. 65/79 (82%) units had no guidelines for surgical device representative visits. 91% of nurses in charge believed that there should be guidelines to protect both patients and staff. 6/79 (8%) units were preparing local guidelines at the time of the survey. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, patient safety, confidentiality and autonomy are being protected by a minority of NHS operating theatres when surgical device representatives attend surgery. National guidelines would hopefully ensure that fully informed patient consent is obtained and that representatives are fully trained and supervised.     

What do patients expect from their physicians? Qualitative research on the ethical aspects of patient statements

This study aimed to examine the thoughts and expectations of patients receiving healthcare from their physicians and evaluate the ethical aspects of these thoughts and expectations. To determine the ethical aspects of the thoughts and expectations of patients, an open-ended question was asked on the web page of the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) Health Care Command, which is accessible to the users of the TAF intranet system (the internet system used within TAF institutions). The participants were asked to express their thoughts in their own words. A total of 804 participants answered the question by providing their input. The statements of the participants were classified separately by two public health specialists. The classification was made in accordance with the basic principles of patient rights, and they were collected under various headings including expectations about respect and care, good communication, informed consent, and fair and non-privileged distribution of healthcare services. The results show that patients tend to consider the physicians they see as solely responsible for all the negative issues that they encounter during their healthcare. This indicates that there is a need for extensive research on the underlying factors involved in the negative thoughts and feelings toward healthcare professionals in both TAF and Turkey in general.     

Should cancer patients be informed about their diagnosis and prognosis? Future doctors and lawyers differ

OBJECTIVES: To compare attitudes of medical and law students toward informing a cancer patient about diagnosis and prognosis and to examine whether differences are related to different convictions about benefit or harm of information. Setting and design: Anonymous questionnaires were distributed to convenience samples of students at the University of Geneva containing four vignettes describing a cancer patient who wishes, or alternatively, who does not wish to be told the truth. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and twenty seven medical students and 168 law students. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Five point Likert scale of responses to the vignettes ranging from "certainly inform" to "certainly not inform" the patient. RESULTS: All medical students and 96% of law students favoured information about the diagnosis of cancer if the patient requests it. Seventy four per cent of medical students and 82% of law students favoured informing a cancer patient about his or her prognosis (p = 0.0003). Thirty five per cent of law students and 11.7% of medical students favoured telling about the diagnosis (p = 0.0004) and 25.6% of law students and 7% of medical students favoured telling about the prognosis (p < 0.0001) even if the patient had clearly expressed his wish not to be informed. Law students indicated significantly more often than medical students reasons to do with the patient's good, legal obligations, and the physician's obligation to tell the truth, and significantly less often than medical students that their attitude had been determined predominantly by respect for the autonomous choice of the patient. CONCLUSION: Differences in attitudes according to the type of case and the type of studies were related to convictions about the benefit or harm to the patient caused by being given information. The self reported reasons of future physicians and future lawyers are helpful when considering means to achieve a better acceptance of patients' right to know and not to know.