METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among year 1 to year 5 medical students in a private medical university. A self-administered questionnaire was used with the 3 major domains of professionalism and ethics i.e. discipline plagiarism and cheating.
RESULTS: A total of 464 respondents responded to the survey and they included medical students from year 1 and year 2 (pre-clinical) and years 3-5 (clinical years). Majority of the students, 275 (59.2%) answered that they had not seen any form of unethical behavior among other students. The females seem to have a larger number 172(63%) among the same gender compared to the males. Majority 352 (75%) of them had not heard of the 'Code of Professional Conduct by the Malaysian Medical Council'. About fifty three (53.1%) of the students answered that the training was sufficient.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the perception of unethical behavior was 58.8% in the 1st year (pre-clinical) and it increased to 65.2% in the 5th year (clinical). The 3 main discipline issues were students do not show interest in class (mean 2.9/4), they are rude to other students (mean 2.8/4) and talking during class (mean 2.6/4). Despite the existence of unethical behavior among the students majority of them (71.7%) claimed that they had adequate training in ethics and professionalism. It is proposed that not only the teaching of ethics and professionalism be reviewed but an assessment strategy be introduced to strengthen the importance of professionalism and ethics.
METHODS: This multi-center, cross-sectional, descriptive survey was conducted at 54 study sites in seven Asia-Pacific countries. A modified Likert-scale questionnaire was used to determine the importance of each element in the ICF among research participants of a biomedical study, with an anchored rating scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).
RESULTS: Of the 2484 questionnaires distributed, 2113 (85.1%) were returned. The majority of respondents considered most elements required in the ICF to be 'moderately important' to 'very important' for their decision making (mean score, ranging from 3.58 to 4.47). Major foreseeable risk, direct benefit, and common adverse effects of the intervention were considered to be of most concerned elements in the ICF (mean score = 4.47, 4.47, and 4.45, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Research participants would like to be informed of the ICF elements required by ethical guidelines and regulations; however, the importance of each element varied, e.g., risk and benefit associated with research participants were considered to be more important than the general nature or technical details of research. Using a participant-oriented approach by providing more details of the participant-interested elements while avoiding unnecessarily lengthy details of other less important elements would enhance the quality of the ICF.
METHODS: We conducted a multicentre instrumental case study across three international medical programmes, all of which were characterised by an international student intake, an internationalised curriculum and international partnerships, and all of which used English as the medium of instruction. We conducted 24 semi-structured interviews with purposively sampled curriculum directors and teaching staff. Participants shared their personal experiences and responded to ethical concerns expressed in the literature. Our multidisciplinary team performed a template analysis of the data based on theoretical frameworks of ethics and social responsibility.
RESULTS: Participants primarily experienced the internationalisation of their institutions and programmes as having a positive impact on students, the university and the future global society. However, they did face several ethical dilemmas. The first of these involved the possibility that marketisation through international recruitment and the application of substantial tuition fees might widen access to medical education, but might allow weaker students to enter medical schools. The second concern referred to the homogenisation of education methods and content, which offers opportunities to expose students to best practices, but may also pose a risk to education quality. The third issue referred to the experience that although student diversity helped to promote intercultural learning, it also jeopardised student well-being.
CONCLUSIONS: In the eyes of teaching staff in international medical education, internationalisation can benefit education quality and society, but poses ethical dilemmas through the forces of marketisation, homogenisation and diversification. The findings reflect a tension between the views of scholars and those of practitioners. The critical perspective found in academic debates is largely missing in practice, and theoretical frameworks on ethics possibly overlook the benefits of international education. To facilitate ethical decision making, we propose that scholars and practitioners globally try to learn from each other.
METHODS: A series of searches were conducted of Medline databases published in English between January 2000 and January 2017 with the following keywords: medical ethics, syllabus, Islam, jurisprudence.
RESULTS: Islamic medical jurisprudence is gaining more attention in some medical schools. However, there is still lack of an organised syllabus in many medical colleges.
CONCLUSION: The outlines of a syllabus in Islamic medical jurisprudence including Islamic values and moral principles related to both the practice and research of medicine are explored.