Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Looi JC, Allison S, Woon L, Bastiampillai T
    Australas Psychiatry, 2024 Feb;32(1):55-58.
    PMID: 37903482 DOI: 10.1177/10398562231211129
    OBJECTIVE: There are many burgeoning treatments, and a large range of therapeutic options for 21st century psychiatry. This paper briefly comments upon considerations for balancing treatment to suit the patient, their illness, and their milieu.

    CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic equipoise, for psychiatric care, is an aspiration rather than a position easily achieved. In day-to-day clinical practice, there will be unexpected demands and barriers that cannot always be accommodated or surmounted. Psychiatrists can work collaboratively with patients, carers, and colleagues in conceptualising and care-planning to avoid extremes of therapeutic hubris and despair, and to adapt evidence-based care more effectively so that it is suited to the patient and their circumstances.

    Matched MeSH terms: Therapeutic Equipoise*
  2. Jones B, Howick J, Hopewell J, Liew SM
    J Med Ethics, 2014 Aug;40(8):576-7.
    PMID: 24812333 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2014-102105
    In August 2011, a group of medical doctors, ethicists, academic and medical physicists were asked to debate and reach consensus on the potential need for randomised control trials to test charged particle radiation therapy (CPRT) for treating tumours. The outcome of the meeting was a paper recently published in the Journal of Medical Ethics entitled "Position statement on ethics, equipoise and research on charged particle therapy" by Sheehan et al. However 6 of the 30 meeting participants withdrew from authorship of the 'position statement' because their views were not adequately represented. The 'position statement' did not state our reasons for withdrawing from the statement, which is a considerable omission. We had two principal objections: (1) the case for the benefits to patients and society of randomized trials to test CPRT was not adequately represented, and (2) the complexities and potential harms of CPRT were not clearly stated. In this response we explain and justify our objections. Patients, doctors and policymakers seeking to make independent judgments about whether equipoise exists for the relative benefits of CPRT should therefore read this document alongside the 'position' statement.
    Matched MeSH terms: Therapeutic Equipoise*
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links