806 research outputs found
News media coverage of euthanasia: A content analysis of Dutch national newspapers
© 2013 Rietjens et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background: The Netherlands is one of the few countries where euthanasia is legal under strict conditions. This study investigates whether Dutch newspaper articles use the term ‘euthanasia’ according to the legal definition and determines what arguments for and against euthanasia they contain. Methods: We did an electronic search of seven Dutch national newspapers between January 2009 and May 2010 and conducted a content analysis. Results: Of the 284 articles containing the term ‘euthanasia’, 24% referred to practices outside the scope of the law, mostly relating to the forgoing of life-prolonging treatments and assistance in suicide by others than physicians. Of the articles with euthanasia as the main topic, 36% described euthanasia in the context of a terminally ill patient, 24% for older persons, 16% for persons with dementia, and 9% for persons with a psychiatric disorder. The most frequent arguments for euthanasia included the importance of self-determination and the fact that euthanasia contributes to a good death. The most frequent arguments opposing euthanasia were that suffering should instead be alleviated by better care, that providing euthanasia can be disturbing, and that society should protect the vulnerable. Conclusions: Of the newspaper articles, 24% uses the term ‘euthanasia’ for practices that are outside the scope of the euthanasia law. Typically, the more unusual cases are discussed. This might lead to misunderstandings between citizens and physicians. Despite the Dutch legalisation of euthanasia, the debate about its acceptability and boundaries is ongoing and both sides of the debate are clearly represented
Influence of Previous Exposure to Antibiotic Therapy on the Susceptibility Pattern of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Bacteremic Isolates
Many patients who present with Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia have been previously exposed to antibiotics. To assess whether resistance of bacteremic strains to antipseudomonal antibiotics (piperacillin, ceftazidime, imipenem, ciprofloxacin, or aminoglycosides) is associated with previous exposure to these drugs, a case-control study including 267 cases of P. aeruginosa bacteremia was conducted. Twenty-five percent of the episodes had been preceded by the exposure to an antipseudomonal antibiotic. Eighty-one strains were resistant to at least 1 antibiotic; 186 were susceptible to all drugs. Via univariate analysis, the risks of resistance to ceftazidime and imipenem were found to be significantly associated with previous receipt of these agents. Using multivariate analysis, exposure to any antipseudomonal antibiotic as a monotherapy was found to be associated with an increased risk of subsequent resistance to itself (odds ratio, 2.5; P = .006). Therefore, clinicians should avoid readministering previously prescribed antibiotics when initiating empiric therapies for possible P. aeruginosa bacteremia, especially when they have been given as monotherapie
WS2.3 Pseudomonas aeruginosa enhanced gap junctional communication by a TLR5 and MAPK-dependent mechanism in airway epithelial cells
What do international ethics guidelines say in terms of the scope of medical research ethics?
BACKGROUND: In research ethics, the most basic question would always be, "which is an ethical issue, which is not?" Interestingly, depending on which ethics guideline we consult, we may have various answers to this question. Though we already have several international ethics guidelines for biomedical research involving human participants, ironically, we do not have a harmonized document which tells us what these various guidelines say and shows us the areas of consensus (or lack thereof). In this manuscript, we attempted to do just that. METHODS: We extracted the imperatives from five internationally-known ethics guidelines and took note where the imperatives came from. In doing so, we gathered data on how many guidelines support a specific imperative. RESULTS: We found that there is no consensus on the majority of the imperatives and that in only 8.2% of the imperatives were there at least moderate consensus (i.e., consensus of at least 3 of the 5 ethics guidelines). Of the 12 clusters (Basic Principles; Research Collaboration; Social Value; Scientific Validity; Participant Selection; Favorable Benefit/Risk Ratio; Independent Review; Informed Consent; Respect for Participants; Publication and Registration; Regulatory Sanctions; and Justified Research on the Vulnerable Population), Informed Consent has the highest level of consensus and Research Collaboration and Regulatory Sanctions have the least. CONCLUSION: There was a lack of consensus in the majority of imperatives from the five internationally-known ethics guidelines. This may be partly explained by the differences among the guidelines in terms of their levels of specification as well as conceptual/ideological differences
Content analysis of Advance Directives completed by patients with advanced cancer as part of an Advance Care Planning intervention : insights gained from the ACTION trial
Purpose Writing an Advance Directive (AD) is often seen as a part of Advance Care Planning (ACP). ADs may include specific preferences regarding future care and treatment and information that provides a context for healthcare professionals and relatives in case they have to make decisions for the patient. The aim of this study was to get insight into the content of ADs as completed by patients with advanced cancer who participated in ACP conversations. Methods A mixed methods study involving content analysis and descriptive statistics was used to describe the content of completed My Preferences forms, an AD used in the intervention arm of the ACTION trial, testing the effectiveness of the ACTION Respecting Choices ACP intervention. Results In total, 33% of 442 patients who received the ACTION RC ACP intervention completed a My Preferences form. Document completion varied per country: 10.4% (United Kingdom), 20.6% (Denmark), 29.2% (Belgium), 41.7% (the Netherlands), 61.3% (Italy) and 63.9% (Slovenia). Content analysis showed that 'maintaining normal life' and 'experiencing meaningful relationships' were important for patients to live well. Fears and worries mainly concerned disease progression, pain or becoming dependent. Patients hoped for prolongation of life and to be looked after by healthcare professionals. Most patients preferred to be resuscitated and 44% of the patients expressed maximizing comfort as their goal of future care. Most patients preferred 'home' as final place of care. Conclusions My Preferences forms provide some insights into patients' perspectives and preferences. However, understanding the reasoning behind preferences requires conversations with patients
- …