> " half of patients with coronary heart disease in general
> practice had at least two missed opportunities for effective medical
> interventions Nearly two thirds of patients with coronary heart
> disease in general practice had two or more high risk lifestyle
> factors that would benefit from change"
> Clinical freedom will be subsumed by guidelines and protocols if
> examples similar to this one conitnue to occur.
Not only clinical freedom, but the life itself will be affected. Since
the fall of panacea theory, it is not advisable to promote any new
medical treatment before adequate and well controlled clinical trials
confirm it's value; even then, a single person will only have one or
another probability for a desired outcome. No medical treatment can be
better than no necessity for treatment at all. Let us not forget MEDICUS
CURAT, NATURA SANAT. Maybe, I am wrong?
Nenad Markovic, M.D., Ph.D.
Former Professor and Chair of Oncology
Internist, Hematologist, Oncologist.
Senior Advisor to a biomedical science consulting company
J.C.Platt wrote:
>
> The BMA http://web.bma.org.uk/homepage.nsf have as the
> headline puts it warn(ed) against government bodies undermining
> clinicians' decisions.
> In a close debate, representatives voted that, in light of the
> establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and
> the Commission for Health Improvement, the BMA must ensure
> that pronouncements from these and similar bodies do not
> jeopardise and erode best treatment of individual patients and/or
> undermine the clinical freedom of registered medical
> practitioners.
> Best treatment of the individual and clinical freedom are concepts
> which seem central to the Is it worth it debate?
> As a consumer I obviously want my G.P. to consider my individual
> needs, however, I do retain a healthy scepticism with regard to
> clinical freedom in the light of papers such as that by Neil C
> Campbell et al (1998) which demonstrated in a baseline survey of
> provision of Secondary prevention in coronary heart disease: in
> general practice
> that:
> " half of patients with coronary heart disease in general
> practice had at least two missed opportunities for effective medical
> interventions Nearly two thirds of patients with coronary heart
> disease in general practice had two or more high risk lifestyle
> factors that would benefit from change"
> Clinical freedom will be subsumed by guidelines and protocols if
> examples similar to this one conitnue to occur.
>
> Ref. BMJ 1998;316:1430-1434 ( 9 May )
> Secondary prevention in coronary heart
> disease: baseline survey of provision in general
> practice
> Neil C Campbell, Joan Thain, H George Deans, Lewis D Ritchie,
> Mackenzie , John M Rawles.
>
> John Platt
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|