During that 2 week time period what treatment is being recommended and
provided ?
--
Preston H. Long
> From: "Stephen M. Perle, DC" <[log in to unmask]>
> Organization: University of Bridgeport College of Chiropractic
> Reply-To: "Stephen M. Perle, DC" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 10:17:45 -0400
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: How do various specialities view EBM?
>
> One of the classes I teach is ethics. I am continually telling my students
> that
> the health policy implications are important from an ethical point of view.
> One
> could argue that treating a patient with an ineffective treatment is a harm, a
> violation of the duty of non-maleficience, to both the patient and society.
> But
> when we talk about LBP for example there is no compelling evidence that one
> particular treatment is best. If we look at meta-analyses on the topic
> depending
> on when and the method used the results are all over the board. Thus, given
> there is a lack of robust evidence of effectiveness for any treatment should
> the
> public policy be to pay for no treatments at all? I think pragmatism says
> that
> while the state of knowledge is equivocal one pays for treatments that have a
> reasonable body of evidence for a reasonable time. I say to patients let's
> try
> a trial course of treatment for two weeks and then re-evaluate your situation
> then.
>
> "Greener, Jenny" wrote:
>
>> How about refocussing the question away from the level of the individual
>> patient - if there is no robust evidence of effectiveness for a particular
>> service, should public money continue to pay for it?- perhaps a question of
>> particular relevance in the UK NHS context.
>>
>> Jenny
>>
>> ---
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Stephen M. Perle, D.C.
> Associate Professor of Clinical Sciences
> University of Bridgeport College of Chiropractic
> Bridgeport, CT 06601
>
> www.bridgeport.edu/~perle
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge:
> it is those who know little, and not those who know much,
> who so positively assert that this or that problem will never
> be solved by science. Charles Darwin
|