Is Autonomy a Universal Value of Human Existence? Scope of Autonomy in Medical Practice: A Comparative Study between Western Medical Ethics and Islamic Medical Ethics

The practice of contemporary medicine has been tremendously influenced by western ideas and it is assumed by many that autonomy is a universal value of human existence. In the World Health Report 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) considered autonomy a “universal” value of human life against which every health system in the world should be judged. Further in Western bioethics, patient autonomy and self -determination prevails in all sectors of social and personal life, a concept unacceptable to some cultures. In principle, there are challenges to the universal validity of autonomy, individualism and secularism, as most non-Western cultures are proud of their communal relations and spiritualistic ethos and, thereby imposing Western beliefs and practices as aforementioned can have deleterious consequences. Religion lies at the heart of most cultures which influences the practice patterns of medical professionals in both visible and unconscious ways. However, religion is mostly viewed by scientists as mystical and without scientific proof. Herein lies the dilemma, whether medical professionals should respect the cultural and religious beliefs of their patients? In this paper we aim to discuss some of the limitations of patient's autonomy by comparing the process of reasoning in western medical ethics and Islamic medical ethics, in order to examine the possibility and desirability of arriving at a single, unitary and universally acceptable notion of medical ethics. We propose a more flexible viewpoint that accommodates different cultural and religious values in interpreting autonomy and applying it in an increasingly multilingual and multicultural, contemporaneous society in order to provide the highest level of care possible

Multidimensional prognostic indices for use in COPD patient care. A systematic review

Contains fulltext : 98117.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: A growing number of prognostic indices for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is developed for clinical use. Our aim is to identify, summarize and compare all published prognostic COPD indices, and to discuss their performance, usefulness and implementation in daily practice. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in both Pubmed and Embase up to September 2010. Selection criteria included primary publications of indices developed for stable COPD patients, that predict future outcome by a multidimensional scoring system, developed for and validated with COPD patients only. Two reviewers independently assessed the index quality using a structured screening form for systematically scoring prognostic studies. RESULTS: Of 7,028 articles screened, 13 studies comprising 15 indices were included. Only 1 index had been explored for its application in daily practice. We observed 21 different predictors and 7 prognostic outcomes, the latter reflecting mortality, hospitalization and exacerbation. Consistent strong predictors were FEV1 percentage predicted, age and dyspnoea. The quality of the studies underlying the indices varied between fairly poor and good. Statistical methods to assess the predictive abilities of the indices were heterogenic. They generally revealed moderate to good discrimination, when measured. Limitations: We focused on prognostic indices for stable disease only and, inevitably, quality judgment was prone to subjectivity. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 15 prognostic COPD indices. Although the prognostic performance of some of the indices has been validated, they all lack sufficient evidence for implementation. Whether or not the use of prognostic indices improves COPD disease management or patients' health is currently unknown; impact studies are required to establish this

Is Autonomy a Universal Value of Human Existence? Scope of Autonomy in Medical Practice: A Comparative Study between Western Medical Ethics and Islamic Medical Ethics

The practice of contemporary medicine has been tremendously influenced by western ideas and it is assumed by many that autonomy is a universal value of human existence. In the World Health Report 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) considered autonomy a “universal” value of human life against which every health system in the world should be judged. Further in Western bioethics, patient autonomy and self -determination prevails in all sectors of social and personal life, a concept unacceptable to some cultures. In principle, there are challenges to the universal validity of autonomy, individualism and secularism, as most non-Western cultures are proud of their communal relations and spiritualistic ethos and, thereby imposing Western beliefs and practices as aforementioned can have deleterious consequences. Religion lies at the heart of most cultures which influences the practice patterns of medical professionals in both visible and unconscious ways. However, religion is mostly viewed by scientists as mystical and without scientific proof. Herein lies the dilemma, whether medical professionals should respect the cultural and religious beliefs of their patients? In this paper we aim to discuss some of the limitations of patient's autonomy by comparing the process of reasoning in western medical ethics and Islamic medical ethics, in order to examine the possibility and desirability of arriving at a single, unitary and universally acceptable notion of medical ethics. We propose a more flexible viewpoint that accommodates different cultural and religious values in interpreting autonomy and applying it in an increasingly multilingual and multicultural, contemporaneous society in order to provide the highest level of care possible.</jats:p

Multiple Score Comparison: a network meta-analysis approach to comparison and external validation of prognostic scores

BACKGROUND: Prediction models and prognostic scores have been increasingly popular in both clinical practice and clinical research settings, for example to aid in risk-based decision making or control for confounding. In many medical fields, a large number of prognostic scores are available, but practitioners may find it difficult to choose between them due to lack of external validation as well as lack of comparisons between them. METHODS: Borrowing methodology from network meta-analysis, we describe an approach to Multiple Score Comparison meta-analysis (MSC) which permits concurrent external validation and comparisons of prognostic scores using individual patient data (IPD) arising from a large-scale international collaboration. We describe the challenges in adapting network meta-analysis to the MSC setting, for instance the need to explicitly include correlations between the scores on a cohort level, and how to deal with many multi-score studies. We propose first using IPD to make cohort-level aggregate discrimination or calibration scores, comparing all to a common comparator. Then, standard network meta-analysis techniques can be applied, taking care to consider correlation structures in cohorts with multiple scores. Transitivity, consistency and heterogeneity are also examined. RESULTS: We provide a clinical application, comparing prognostic scores for 3-year mortality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using data from a large-scale collaborative initiative. We focus on the discriminative properties of the prognostic scores. Our results show clear differences in performance, with ADO and eBODE showing higher discrimination with respect to mortality than other considered scores. The assumptions of transitivity and local and global consistency were not violated. Heterogeneity was small. CONCLUSIONS: We applied a network meta-analytic methodology to externally validate and concurrently compare the prognostic properties of clinical scores. Our large-scale external validation indicates that the scores with the best discriminative properties to predict 3 year mortality in patients with COPD are ADO and eBODE