Religion and spirituality have always played a major and intervening role in a person's life and health matters. With the influential development of patient autonomy and the right to self-determination, a patient's religious affiliation constitutes a key component in medical decision making. This is particularly pertinent in issues involving end-of-life decisions such as withdrawing and withholding treatment, medical futility, nutritional feeding and do-not-resuscitate orders. These issues affect not only the patient's values and beliefs, but also the family unit and members of the medical profession. The law also plays an intervening role in resolving conflicts between the sanctity of life and quality of life that are very much pronounced in this aspect of healthcare. Thus, the medical profession in dealing with the inherent ethical and legal dilemmas needs to be sensitive not only to patients' varying religious beliefs and cultural values, but also to the developing legal and ethical standards as well. There is a need for the medical profession to be guided on the ethical obligations, legal demands and religious expectations prior to handling difficult end-of-life decisions. The development of comprehensive ethical codes in congruence with developing legal standards may offer clear guidance to the medical profession in making sound medical decisions.
End-of-life decision-making is an area of medical practice in which ethical dilemmas and legal interventions have become increasingly prevalent. Decisions are no longer confined to clinical assessments; rather, they involve wider considerations such as a patient's religious and cultural beliefs, financial constraints, and the wishes and needs of family members. These decisions affect everyone concerned, including members of the community as a whole. Therefore it is imperative that clear ethical codes and legal standards are developed to help guide the medical profession on the best possible course of action for patients. This article considers the relevant ethical, codes and legal provisions in Malaysia governing certain aspects of end-of-life decision-making. It highlights the lack of judicial decisions in this area as well as the limitations with the Malaysian regulatory system. The article recommends the development of comprehensive ethical codes and legal standards to guide end-of-life decision-making in Malaysia.
The subject of euthanasia has generated many controversial debates, particularly on its legality. This has been primarily due to the doctrine of sanctity of life which is a predominant principle in many religions and is embedded in moral values. The underlying precept is that human life is sacred and demands respect, as all life comes from God and life can only be taken away intentionally through due process of law. Thus, ending a person's life, even upon his or her request, is considered in many jurisdictions as a criminal offence. Irrespective of humanitarian motives, a doctor who aids a patient in this act will be in breach of his unequivocal duty as a doctor and considered to have committed an unlawful act, which will subject him to legal sanctions. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Turkey have explicit legal provisions banning, in particular, active euthanasia, while countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and certain states in the U.S have taken positive steps to legalise euthanasia in certain aspects. The ethical codes and laws in Malaysia have yet to develop to the fullest extent in dealing with these issues. Although Malaysian statutory legislation contains provisions banning active euthanasia, the legal position on passive euthanasia remains implicit. In the absence of indicative legal provisions and judicial precedents governing certain matters arising, it has been the practice of the Malaysian courts to refer to relevant legal principles inherent in English cases. As Islam is proclaimed as the country's official religion, the Islamic perspective is also an important and influential factor in the development of the legal framework in Malaysia as a whole. Thus, there is a need for the existence of a clear and comprehensive regulatory framework governing the legality of euthanasia in Malaysia.
BACKGROUND: Patients with severe psoriasis, namely those requiring phototherapy or systemic treatment, have an increased risk of death. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence, aetiology and risk factors for mortality among adult patients aged 18 years and above with psoriasis in Malaysia.
METHODS: This was a retrospective study involving adult patients notified by dermatologists to the Malaysian Psoriasis Registry between July 2007 and December 2013. Data were cross-checked against the National Death Registry. Patients certified dead were identified and the cause of death was analysed. Multivariate analysis using multiple logistic regression were conducted on potential factors associated with higher risk of mortality.
RESULTS: A total of 419 deaths were identified among the 9775 patients notified. There were four significant risk factors for higher mortality: age>40 years (age 41-60 years old, Odds Ratio (OR) 2.70, 95%CI 1.75, 4.18; age>60 years OR 7.46, 95%CI 4.62, 12.02), male gender (OR 1.72, 95%CI 1.33,2.22), severe psoriasis with body surface area (BSA) >10% (OR 1.52, 95%CI 1.19, 1.96) and presence of at least one cardiovascular co-morbidity (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.30, 2.14). Among the 301 patients with verifiable causes of death, the leading causes were infection (33.9%), cardiovascular disease (33.6%) and malignancy (15.9%).
CONCLUSION: Infection was the leading cause of death among psoriasis patients in Malaysia. Although cardiovascular diseases are well-known to cause significant morbidity and mortality among psoriasis patients, the role of infections and malignancy should not be overlooked.