Post stroke hyperglycaemia (PSH) is prevalent in acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) patients and it has been associated with a dismal outcome of death and disability. Insulin has been proven to attenuate glucose effectively in stroke patients, thus many trials over the years had studied the efficacy of intensive treatment aiming at normalization of blood sugar level in order to improve the bleak outcomes of PSH. However, tight glycaemic control failed to be translated into clinical benefits and the outcomes are no different from the conventional approach, despite the costly healthcare expenditure invested. On the contrary, it brings more significant harm than the intended benefit, as 1 in every 9 treated patients had symptomatic hypoglycaemia. Thus, the benefits of tight glucose control, if any, are overshadowed by this potential risk of hypoglycaemia causing permanent neurological injury. Therefore, international practice guidelines recommend for less aggressive treatment to maintain blood glucose level within an appropriate range in AIS patients. However, there are limited details for stroke-specific glycaemic management and this made management of PSH particularly difficult. This review is to discuss and provide suggestions concerning glycaemic control in acute ischaemic stroke; the direction of its future prospective clinical trials and the treatment strategy required based on recent literature.
INTRODUCTION: Due to globalization and changes in the health care delivery system, there has been a gradual change in the attitude of the medical community as well as the lay public toward greater acceptance of euthanasia as an option for terminally ill and dying patients. Physicians in developing countries come across situations where such issues are raised with increasing frequency. As euthanasia has gained world-wide prominence, the objectives of our study therefore were to explore the attitude of physicians and chronically ill patients toward euthanasia and related issues. Concomitantly, we wanted to ascertain the frequency of requests for assistance in active euthanasia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Questionnaire based survey among consenting patients and physicians.
RESULTS: The majority of our physicians and patients did not support active euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (EAS), no matter what the circumstances may be P < 0.001. Both opposed to its legalization P < 0.001. Just 15% of physicians reported that they were asked by patients for assistance in dying. Both physicians 29.2% and patients 61.5% were in favor of withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment to a patient with no chances of survival. Among patients no significant differences were observed for age, marital status, or underlying health status.
CONCLUSIONS: A significant percentage of surveyed respondents were against EAS or its legalization. Patient views were primarily determined by religious beliefs rather than the disease severity. More debates on the matter are crucial in the ever-evolving world of clinical medicine.
KEYWORDS: Attitude; euthanasia; legalization; multi-cultural; physician-assisted suicide