Response Evidence-based vs emotion-based medical decision-making: Routine preoperative HIV testing vs universal precautions

1993 ◽  
Vol 46 (11) ◽  
pp. 1233-1236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie A. Lawrence ◽  
Amiram Gafni ◽  
Kurt Kroenke
2020 ◽  
Vol 176 ◽  
pp. 1703-1712
Author(s):  
Georgy Lebedev ◽  
Eduard Fartushnyi ◽  
Igor Fartushnyi ◽  
Igor Shaderkin ◽  
Herman Klimenko ◽  
...  

1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Dowie

Three broad movements are seeking to change the world of medicine. The proponents of ‘evidence-based medicine’ are mainly concerned with ensuring that strategies of proven clinical effectiveness are adopted. Health economists are mainly concerned to establish that ‘cost-effectiveness’ and not ‘clinical effectiveness’ is the criterion used in determining option selection. A variety of patient support and public interest groups, including many health economists, are mainly concerned with ensuring that patient and public preferences drive clinical and policy decisions. This paper argues that decision analysis based medical decision making (DABMDM) constitutes the pre-requisite for the widespread introduction of the main principles embodied in evidence-based medicine, cost-effective medicine and preference-driven medicine; that, in the light of current modes of practice, seeking to promote these principles without a prior or simultaneous move to DABMDM is equivalent to asking the cart to move without the horse; and that in fact DABMDM subsumes and enjoins the valuable aspects of all three. Particular attention is paid to differentiating between DABMDM and EBM, by way of analysis of various expositions of EBM and examination of two recent empirical studies. EBM, as so far expounded, reflects a problem-solving attitude that results in a heavy concentration on RCTs and meta-analyses, rather than a broad decision making focus that concentrates on meeting all the requirements of a good clinical decision. The latter include: Ensuring that inferences from RCTs and meta-analyses to individual patients (or patient groups) are made explicitly; paying equally serious attention to evidence on values and costs as to clinical evidence; and accepting the inadequacy of ‘taking into account and bearing in mind’ as a way of integrating the multiple and distinct elements of a decision.


2008 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 307-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernice S. Elger

Insomnia is a frequent reason for medical and psychiatric consultation in prisons. Medical decision-making in correctional health care should be based on the same principles as outside correctional institutions. In places of detention, principles should be balanced according to the same criteria as outside correctional institutions, while taking into account the unique harm-benefit ratios related to the specific context. The aim of this paper was to examine the existing attitudes and ethical issues related to decision-making about insomnia evaluation and treatment in places of detention. An analysis of the ethical issues and an evidence-based review of the consequences of different attitudes and treatments with regard to prison medicine were carried out. Insomnia is a public health problem and requires adequate evaluation and treatment to avoid more serious health consequences both within and outside correctional institutions. Insomnia treatment in places of detention is an ethical dilemma, but there is no evidence-based reason to avoid benzodiazepines in prison completely and to use only neuroleptics and antidepressants, which might represent more dangerous and less efficient treatment. In prison medicine, should we even treat insomnia? Widely accepted ethical strategies of decision-making indicate that we should. Institutional guidelines on insomnia should be based on ethically sound decision-making that takes into account the available evidence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document