创伤骨科的不当医疗

不当医疗问题已经引起社会各界的广泛关注,它包括过度医疗行为、错误医疗行为和缺陷性医疗行为.创伤骨科疾病不当医疗既与医学发展水平和医学本身规律特点有关,又与现行医疗体制、医院经营机制有关,是患者及家属、医务人员和社会等多因素参与,受现行医学科学发展制约的治疗行为.应避免不当医疗,追求适度医疗,尽量达到最优化医疗.     

由网络成瘾列为精神疾病反思医学化倾向

由于精神疾病的诊断特点,精神科中的医学化现象尤为突出.但精神科的这种现象会产生不当的行为控制、个体与社会的隔阂等弊端.一些网络成瘾的矫治措施限制或剥夺被矫治青少年的人身自由,有的已经带有对精神病性障碍患者进行强制性医疗的色彩.网络成瘾目前归为精神疾病的科学依据不足、容易引起误解和误导,是医学化在精神科中的又一表现.     

医学人文技能训练模块的设置和实践

医学人文教育与医学教育的有机融合是医学教育发展的必然趋势。目前,医学人文课程普遍实用性不强,内容与医疗实践脱节,缺乏实践过程。在临床技能模拟教学中设置医学人文技能训练模块包括:医患沟通模块、医疗法律意识和医疗纠纷防范模块、职业道德和职业态度模块三部分。通过在临床操作各项教学环节中模拟医疗活动真实场景和医患诊疗行为来训练学生的多项人文执业技能,避免专业技能教育与人文理论教育分离,有利于提高人文教育的实效性。     

过度医疗辨析:集体无意识与有组织的不负责任行为

集体无意识源自于遗传因素,普遍存在但又不为人感知,它深刻地影响个人和社会的各种行为。其潜在性、强制性和不确定性等特征,可以制造出各种不可抗拒的力量影响着人们的行为方式。当今医学资本盲目扩张就是一种典型集体无意识有组织的不负责任,其严重负面后果之一就是过度医疗泛滥,背离医学初衷和发展目标,医学正在走向极端的非理性,其对医学发展的损害将是难以预测的。因此,务必认清无意识表现和机制,构建正向集体无意识,抵制过度医疗干预,促进医学的正向发展。     

构建高质量的外科医学教育体系

医学教育是贯穿医疗职业生涯全过程的行为,是伴随医学进步和发展的重要工程.医学教育的质量直接影响医疗的质量和医学人才的素质,尤其是外科学领域,是以有创性的手段、方法治疗疾病.医生的职业素养、医疗水平均取决于医学教育的结果.医疗质量不能简单地用医生的学历衡量,学历教育是载体,其中应充实培养能力的教育项目、内容,以适应未来就职、就业的社会需求.医疗质量、医疗水平对医院而言是生命线,是生产力.同时,医生的教育及教育的质量是医疗质量的基础与保障.随着医学的飞速发展,医疗技术的日新月异,医学模式的改变,构建新的医疗环境下的医学教育体系,显得更为重要.     

医疗过失行为的思维根源

思维活动始终影响着临床医生的诊疗行为并贯穿于整个诊疗过程。正确良好的思维方式能使疾病获得及时正确诊断与治疗,而错误不当的思维方式则会导致疾病诊断的贻误及治疗的错误,是临床医生发生医疗过失行为的重要原因。分析临床医生不当思维方式的表现及产生原因,有助于减少医疗过失的发生,并有利于医疗质量的提高。     

医疗行为的不安全因素分析

医疗行为的不安全因素分析山西铝厂职工医院（０４３３００）薛轴一、医务人员不循规蹈矩医疗行为必须遵循严格的规章制度。医务人员循规蹈矩观念的培养、形成与巩固,有赖于正规的医学伦理学教育、常抓不懈的医德医风建设和医疗规章制度的约束。医疗单位的领导和职能部门...     

循证医学指导疾病治疗的面面观

循证医学 (evidence -basedmedicine ,EBM )概念是加拿大临床流行病学家Sackett创立的 ,并于1992年被正式提出[1] ,是一种评价某种治疗或保健方案的法则。自从 1993年美国JAMA开始发表有关循证医学的文章以来 ,循证医学的概念风靡全球。该概念引入我国后 ,在规范医疗行为、指导医疗实践中功不可没。但我们也应当清醒地看到 ,由于一些医疗工作者对循证医学概念的片面理解和应用 ,使得一些疾病的治疗进入了误区。所以 ,在医疗实践中应客观辩证地应用循证医学概念。1　循征医学的历史地位首先 ,循证医学概念的产生有它的历史局限性。循证医…     

医疗活动中言语行为特征解析

随着医学模式的变化,医疗的人文关怀的提出,医疗活动中的言语行为也出现了新的特征.从现代医学的发展为医疗言语行为提供了大的语用背景、患者群体的特殊性及其演变延伸了言语行为的情感功能、语用环境的复合性凸现了言语行为的道德水准、医疗活动的风险特质决定了医疗言语行为的规范准确性等四个方面对这种特征加以解析.     

法制环境下的现代医学--一个必须面对的新问题

法制社会强调医疗行为的合法性.强调现代医学的法制环境主要目的是规范医疗行为,合法行医,和谐医患关系和防止医学科学技术的异化造成伦理和社会危机.法制医学对医务人员的责任要求包括:强制责任(救治责任)、民事责任、刑事责任、诉讼的举证责任和医疗免责条件.     

The Role of Regret in Medical Decision-making

In this paper, I explore the role that regret does and should play in medical decision-making. Specifically, I consider whether the possibility of a patient experiencing post-treatment regret is a good reason for a clinician to counsel against that treatment or to withhold it. Currently, the belief that a patient may experience post-treatment regret is sometimes taken as a sufficiently strong reason to withhold it, even when the patient makes an explicit, informed request. Relatedly, medical researchers and practitioners often understand a patient’s post-treatment regret to be a significant problem, one that reveals a mistake or flaw in the decision-making process. Contrary to these views, I argue that the possibility of post-treatment regret is not necessarily a good reason for withholding the treatment. This claim is justified by appealing to respect for patient autonomy. Furthermore, there are occasions when the very reference to post-treatment regret during medical decision-making is inappropriate. This, I suggest, is the case when the decision concerns a “personally transformative treatment”. This is a treatment that alters a person’s identity. Because the treatment is transformative, neither clinicians nor the patient him/herself can ascertain whether post-treatment regret will occur. Consequently, I suggest, what matters in determining whether to offer a personally transformative treatment is whether the patient has sufficiently good reasons for wanting the treatment at the time the decision is made. What does not matter is how the patient may subsequently be changed by undergoing the treatment.     

Damage compounded: disparities, distrust, and disparate impact in end-of-life conflict resolution policies

For a little more than a decade, professional organizations and healthcare institutions have attempted to develop guidelines and policies to deal with seemingly intractable conflicts that arise between clinicians and patients (or their proxies) over appropriate use of aggressive life-sustaining therapies in the face of low expectations of medical benefit. This article suggests that, although such efforts at conflict resolution are commendable on many levels, inadequate attention has been given to their potential negative effects upon particular groups of patients/proxies. Based on the well-documented tendency among many African Americans to prefer more aggressive end-of-life medical interventions, it is proposed that the use of institutional policy to break decision making impasse in cases for which aggressive treatment is deemed "medically inappropriate" will fall disproportionately on that group. Finally, it is suggested that the development and application of institutional conflict-resolution policies should be evaluated in the context of historical and current experiences of marginalization and disempowerment, lest such policies exacerbate that experience.     

Damage Compounded: Disparities,Distrust, and Disparate Impact in End-of-Life Conflict Resolution Policies

For a little more than a decade, professional organizations and healthcare institutions have attempted to develop guidelines and policies to deal with seemingly intractable conflicts that arise between clinicians and patients (or their proxies) over appropriate use of aggressive life-sustaining therapies in the face of low expectations of medical benefit. This article suggests that, although such efforts at conflict resolution are commendable on many levels, inadequate attention has been given to their potential negative effects upon particular groups of patients/proxies. Based on the well-documented tendency among many African Americans to prefer more aggressive end-of-life medical interventions, it is proposed that the use of institutional policy to break decision making impasse in cases for which aggressive treatment is deemed “medically inappropriate” will fall disproportionately on that group. Finally, it is suggested that the development and application of institutional conflict-resolution policies should be evaluated in the context of historical and current experiences of marginalization and disempowerment, lest such policies exacerbate that experience.     

Physicians' silent decisions: because patient autonomy does not always come first

Physicians make some medical decisions without disclosure to their patients. Nondisclosure is possible because these are silent decisions to refrain from screening, diagnostic or therapeutic interventions. Nondisclosure is ethically permissible when the usual presumption that the patient should be involved in decisions is defeated by considerations of clinical utility or patient emotional and physical well-being. Some silent decisions--not all--are ethically justified by this standard. Justified silent decisions are typically dependent on the physician's professional judgment, experience and knowledge, and are not likely to be changed by patient preferences. We condemn the inappropriate exclusion of the patient from the decision-making process. However, if a test or treatment is unlikely to yield a net benefit, disclosure and discussion are at times unnecessary. Appropriate silent decisions are ethically justified by such considerations as patient benefit or economy of time.     

Physicians' Silent Decisions: Because Patient Autonomy Does Not Always Come First

Physicians make some medical decisions without disclosure to their patients. Nondisclosure is possible because these are silent decisions to refrain from screening, diagnostic or therapeutic interventions. Nondisclosure is ethically permissible when the usual presumption that the patient should be involved in decisions is defeated by considerations of clinical utility or patient emotional and physical well-being. Some silent decisions—not all—are ethically justified by this standard. Justified silent decisions are typically dependent on the physician's professional judgment, experience and knowledge, and are not likely to be changed by patient preferences. We condemn the inappropriate exclusion of the patient from the decision-making process. However, if a test or treatment is unlikely to yield a net benefit, disclosure and discussion are at times unnecessary. Appropriate silent decisions are ethically justified by such considerations as patient benefit or economy of time.     

Variations in physician practice and covert rationing

The use of recent research on variations in medical practice to promote competitive market oriented cost containment strategies is critically examined. Research demonstrating widespread variations in physician practices for similar patient populations undermines the medical profession's claims about the scientific objectivity of medical practice and indicates the existence of widespread waste and inappropriate utilization of health care resources. Cost containment programs which rely on market-based care avoidance incentives, such as Medicare prospective payment or cost sharing plans, attempt to impact medical practice variations by creating economic barriers between doctor and patient. An alternative interpretation of research on practice variations is presented, emphasizing containing costs while improving quality of care and achieving greater equity through planning and regulation of medical supply factors.     

Making good choices: toward a theory of well-being in medicine

The principle of beneficence directs healthcare practitioners to promote patients’ well-being, ensuring that the patients’ best interests guide treatment decisions. Because there are a number of distinct theories of well-being that could lead to different conclusions about the patient’s good, a careful consideration of which account is best suited for use in the medical context is needed. While there has been some discussion of the differences between subjective and objective theories of well-being within the bioethics literature, less attention has been given to the questions of what work a theory of well-being needs to do in bioethics and which standards of success ought to be used in selecting a theory of well-being for use in medicine. In this article, I argue that traditional theories of well-being developed in philosophy are not well suited to meet the needs of the medical context. For the principle of beneficence to be most useful, the underlying account of well-being should satisfy two conditions: first, it needs to lead to a concrete, action-guiding determination of the patient’s good; and, second, any recommendations it offers need to be justifiable to patients. Standard accounts of well-being have difficulty satisfying both conditions. Exploring the limitations of these theories when applied to treatment dilemmas helps point the way toward the development of an account of well-being better suited to healthcare.     

Just How Unlawful is “Euthanasia”?

Those who campaign for law reform to permit "euthanasia" may seek different things and at least some of what they seek may already be permissible under the criminal law of England and Wales. In this paper I examine one means whereby the criminal law delivers outcomes acceptable to the euthanasia lobby, that is the curious notion of "causation" deployed by the law, which adds a value override to the more usual notion of factual causation such that, for example, if medical treatment falls within the acceptable range as normal and proper, the pre–existing injury or illness is treated as exclusively the cause of death and the doctor escapes criminal liability, even where the medical treatment will shorten life to the certain knowledge, possibly even the wish, of the doctor. Thus the law may already be delivering a range of outcomes — euthanasia in a weak sense — acceptable to the euthanasia lobby. If so, it achieves this by stealth. That is inappropriate to the doctor–patient relationship, which is one of trust. So there is a strong case for greater transparency. Moreover, there are limits to the acceptable outcomes which an unreformed criminal law can deliver and in a range of cases the criminal law condemns the doctor to impotence and the patient to a prolonged, miserable and undignified death. So there is also a case for going beyond the current law and legalising euthanasia in a strong sense.     

Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone associated with escitalopram therapy

Escitalopram is the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) most recently approved for use in the United States. It is structurally related to citalopram, but is felt to have a more tolerable side-effect profile than its parent compound. Side effects are not generally serious and include headache, diarrhea, and nausea. While hyponatremia and the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) have been associated with treatment with other SSRIs, there has only been one case of escitalopram-induced SIADH reported in the literature to date. We now report another case of a patient who developed SIADH after being treated with escitalopram for 4 weeks. The patient's hyponatremia improved following the discontinuation of escitalopram. Clinicians should be aware of this uncommon but significant side effect of SSRIs and monitor high-risk patients for the development of SIADH.     

Affirming the Existential within Medicine: Medical Humanities, Governance, and Imaginative Understanding

This paper first distinguishes governance (collective, autonomous self-regulatory processes) from government (externally-imposed mandatory regulation); it proposes that the second of these is essentially incompatible with a conception of the medical humanities that involves imagination and vision on the part of medical practitioners. It next develops that conception of the medical humanities, as having three distinguishable aspects (all of them distinct from the separate phenomena popularly known as "arts-in-health"): first, an intellectual enquiry into the nature of clinical medicine; second, an important dimension of medical education; third, a resource for moral and aesthetic influences upon clinical practice, supporting "humane health care" as the moral inspirations behind organised medicine. Medical humanities sustains these three aspects through paying proper attention to the existential and subjective aspects of medicine. By encouraging authentic imagination among health care practitioners, medical humanities aligns well with both humane health care and governance in the sense of self-regulation. However, it can neither be achieved mechanistically nor well-measured through proxies such as patient satisfaction. Above all, it should not be allowed to supply, through inappropriate qualitative "targets," new forms of management tyranny.