The aim of this paper is to expand upon the conclusions reached by Orr and Genesen in their 1997 article , Requests for ‘inappropriate’ treatment based on religious beliefs.1 Assuming, with Orr and Genesen, that claims made in the name of religion are not absolute, I will propose some principles for determining when claims based on religious beliefs or cultural sensibilities “trump” other considerations and when they do not.

Background and Purpose Stroke represents one of the most important causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Innovative systems biology-based approach is likely to increase the understanding of the underpinning of acute stroke promise to enhance stroke prevention, acute treatment, and neurorehabilitation. Recent growing body of evidence with shared pathobiology with COVID-19 and the critically important role of inflammation in the context of stroke points to far-reaching consequences of acute stroke, just as in the case of COVID-19. So far, stroke typically (...) defined by late-appearing disease manifestation by the range of stroke subtypes as defined by the WHO or American Stroke Association. This definition neglects the underlying pathobiological mechanisms such as low-grade chronic inflammation and already compromised vascular system. Diseases such as stroke is hardly a simple result of a single problem, but rather a complex cascade of pathobiological processes and interactions in a complex biochemical environment. The evidence of changes in innate immunity and adaptive immunity during the index event of acute stroke and recovery over next 3-12 months can be easily elicited with simple bedside blood tests such as neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio with well over 300 published papers including several systematic reviews and meta-analyses confirming this. Global standard operating procedures of stroke care dictated by the national and international stroke guidelines at present. It is imperative to explore the evidence of systems biology approach in current stroke guidelines. This is likely to be a key turning point in managing stroke across the continuum. Methods We systematically searched for guideline recommendation on the day-to-day use of peripheral inflammatory markers such as NLR published in the English language between January 1, 2005, and December 2020. Any other evidence of systems biology-based approach or recommendation was explored within the selected guidelines for this scoping review. Only the latest guideline per writing group was selected. Each guideline was analyzed independently by 2 to 4 authors to determine clinical scenarios explained/given, scientific evidence used, and recommendations presented in the context of systems biology. Results The scoping review found 3,830 titles with 119 guidelines from 46 countries included for this review. Stroke-related organizations wrote Sixty-five per cent of the guidelines while national ministries wrote a fewer number of guidelines. We were primarily interested in recommendations for acute management in AIS published in the English language. Fifteen eligible guidelines were identified from 15 different countries/regions. None of the guidelines recommended the routine use of peripheral markers of inflammation, such as NLR, among their acute assessment and management recommendations. None of the existing guidelines explored the systems biology approach to one of the most complex diseases affecting the human brain, stroke. Conclusions This systematic review has identified a significant evidence-practice gap in all existing national stroke guidelines published in English medium as of October 2020. These guidelines included the only current “living stroke guidelines, Stroke Guidelines from Australia with a real opportunity to modernize the living stroke guidelines with systems biology approach and provide 2020 vision towards better stroke care globally. Investigation of complex disease such as stroke is best served through a systems biology approach. One of the easiest places to start is simple blood tests such as total white cell count and NLR. Systems biology approach point us towards simple tools such immune-inflammatory index, Sunshine Prognostic Score which should pave the way for the stroke physician community address the challenges in systems biology approach in stroke care. These challenges include translating bench research to the bedside, managing big data. Working with an interdisciplinary team is also provide a distinct advantage. (shrink)

The principal question of this paper is: Why are religious values special in refusal of lifesaving medical treatment? This question is approached through a critical examination of a common kind of refusal of treatment case, one involving a rational adult. The central value cited in defence of honouring such a patient's refusal is autonomy. Once autonomy is isolated from other justificatory factors, however, possible cases can be imagined which cast doubt on the great valuational weight assigned it by strong anti-paternalists. (...) This weight is sufficient, in their estimation, to justify honouring the patient's refusal. There is thus a tension between the strong anti-paternalist's commitment to the sufficiency of autonomy and our intuitions respecting such cases. Attempts can be made to relieve this tension, such as arguing that patients aren't really rational in the circumstances envisaged, or that other values, such as privacy or bodily integrity, if added to autonomy, are sufficient to justify an anti-paternalistic stance. All such attempts fail, however. But what does not fail is the addition of religious freedom, freedom respecting a patient's religious beliefs and values. Why religious freedom reduces the tension is then explained, and the specialness of religious beliefs and values examined. (shrink)

Our aim is to expand the regulative ideal governing consent. We argue that consent should not only be informed but also based on rational beliefs. We argue that holding true beliefs promotes autonomy. Information is important insofar as it helps a person to hold the relevant true beliefs. But in order to hold the relevant true beliefs, competent people must also think rationally. Insofar as information is important, rational deliberation is important. Just as physicians should aim to provide relevant information (...) regarding the medical procedures prior to patients consenting to have those procedures, they should also assist patients to think more rationally. We distinguish between rational choice/action and rational belief. While autonomous choice need not necessarily be rational, it should be based on rational belief. The implication for the doctrine of informed consent and the practice of medicine is that, if physicians are to respect patient autonomy and help patients to choose and act more rationally, not only must they provide information, but they should care more about the theoretical rationality of their patients. They should not abandon their patients to irrationality. They should help their patients to deliberate more effectively and to care more about thinking rationally. We illustrate these arguments in the context of Jehovah's Witnesses refusing life-saving blood transfusions. Insofar as Jehovah's Witnesses should be informed of the consequences of their actions, they should also deliberate rationally about these consequences. (shrink)

Informed consent is a central topic in contemporary biomedical ethics. Yet attempts to set defensible and feasible standards for consenting have led to persistent difficulties. In Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics Neil Manson and Onora O'Neill set debates about informed consent in medicine and research in a fresh light. They show why informed consent cannot be fully specific or fully explicit, and why more specific consent is not always ethically better. They argue that consent needs distinctive communicative transactions, by which (...) other obligations, prohibitions, and rights can be waived or set aside in controlled and specific ways. Their book offers a coherent, wide-ranging and practical account of the role of consent in biomedicine which will be valuable to readers working in a range of areas in bioethics, medicine and law. (shrink)

Jehovah's Witnesses' (JWs) refusal of blood transfusions has recently gained support in the medical community because of the growing popularity of "no-blood" treatment. Many physicians, particularly so-called "sympathetic doctors", are establishing a close relationship with this religious organization. On the other hand, it is little known that this blood doctrine is being strongly criticized by reform-minded current and former JWs who have expressed conscientious dissent from the organization. Their arguments reveal religious practices that conflict with many physicians' moral standards. They (...) also suggest that a certain segment of "regular" or orthodox JWs may have different attitudes towards the blood doctrine. The author considers these viewpoints and argues that there are ethical flaws in the blood doctrine, and that the medical community should reconsider its supportive position. The usual physician assumption that JWs are acting autonomously and uniformly in refusing blood is seriously questioned. (shrink)

When attempting to answer the question, in the context of clinical healthcare, one might be tempted to leap to either of two rather obvious, but seemingly contradictory conclusions. On the one hand, we might have a general impression of religion not making much of a distinctive and clear difference, at least in the actions and outcomes of most cases of clinical interaction. Those of us in the bioethics world of discourse are likely to think only of the less common cases (...) of Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Orthodox Jews, or certain religious groups who seem to the majority of the population to hold especially sectarian, if not beliefs about medical matters. The so-called mainstream religious groups do not get much attention because they largely don't cause much trouble ; they have learned to bracket their religious commitments from at least any professional settings ; or they don't hold views entailing consequences any different from those of most nonbelieving, generally upright individuals. Furthermore, although religious believers may have some distinctive views, these views don't often noticeably manifest themselves in distinctive or significant ways. (shrink)

This paper discusses the role of consent in decision making generally and its role in end of life decisions in particular. It outlines a conception of autonomy which explains and justifies the role of consent in decision making and criticises some misapplications of the idea of consent, particular the role of fictitious or “proxy” consents.Where the inevitable outcome of a decision must be that a human individual will die and where that individual is a person who can consent, then that (...) decision is ethical if and only if the individual consents. In very rare and extreme cases such a decision will be ethical in the absence of consent where it would be massively cruel not to end life in order to prevent suffering which is in no other way preventable.Where, however, the human individual is not a person, as is the case with abortion, the death of infants like Mary , or in the very rare and extreme cases of those who have ceased to be persons like Tony Bland, such decisions are governed by the ethics of ending the lives of non-persons. (shrink)