Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T19:27:26.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Choosing the best treatment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2014

M. G. Myriam Hunink
Affiliation:
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Milton C. Weinstein
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
Eve Wittenberg
Affiliation:
Harvard School of Public Health, Massachusetts
Michael F. Drummond
Affiliation:
University of York
Joseph S. Pliskin
Affiliation:
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
John B. Wong
Affiliation:
Tufts University, Massachusetts
Paul P. Glasziou
Affiliation:
Bond University, Queensland
Get access

Summary

Firstly, do no (net) harm.

(adapted from) Hippocrates

Introduction

Some treatment decisions are straightforward. For example, what should be done for an elderly patient with a fractured hip? Inserting a metal pin has dramatically altered the management: instead of lying in bed for weeks or months waiting for the fracture to heal while blood clots and pneumonia threatened, the patient is now ambulatory within days. The risks of morbidity and mortality are both greatly reduced. However, many treatment decisions are complex. They involve uncertainties and trade-offs that need to be carefully weighed before choosing. Tragic outcomes may occur no matter which choice is made, and the best that can be done is to minimize the overall risks. Such decisions can be difficult and uncomfortable to make. For example, consider the following historical dilemma.

Benjamin Franklin and smallpox

Benjamin Franklin argued implicitly in favor of the application to individual patients of probabilities based on previous experience with similar groups of patients. Before Edward Jenner’s discovery in 1796 of cowpox vaccination for smallpox, it was known that immunity from smallpox could be achieved by a live smallpox inoculation, but the procedure entailed a risk of death. When a smallpox epidemic broke out in Boston in 1721, the physician Zabdiel Boylston consented, at the urging of the clergyman Cotton Mather, to inoculate several hundred citizens. Mather and Boylston reported their results (1):

Out of about ten thousand Bostonians, five thousand seven hundred fifty-nine took smallpox the natural way. Of these, eight hundred eighty-five died, or one in seven. Two hundred eighty-six took smallpox by inoculation. Of these, six died, or one in forty-seven.

Type
Chapter
Information
Decision Making in Health and Medicine
Integrating Evidence and Values
, pp. 53 - 77
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Schmidt, WM. Health and welfare of colonial American children. Am J Dis Child. 1976;130(7):694–701.Google ScholarPubMed
Mos, IC, Klok, FA, Kroft, LJ, et al. Safety of ruling out acute pulmonary embolism by normal computed tomography pulmonary angiography in patients with an indication for computed tomography: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2009;7(9):1491–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lucassen, W, Geersing, GJ, Erkens, PM, et al. Clinical decision rules for excluding pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(7):448–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, SM. Pregnancy-associated venous thromboembolism: prevention and treatment. Semin Hematol. 2011;48(4):271–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Erkel, AR, Pattynama, PM. Cost-effective diagnostic algorithms in pulmonary embolism: an updated analysis. Acad Radiol. 1998;5 Suppl. 2:S321–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pauker, SG, Kassirer, JP. Therapeutic decision making: a cost–benefit analysis. N Engl J Med. 1975;293(5):229–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pauker, SG, Kassirer, JP. The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N Engl J Med. 1980;302(20):1109–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×