LikeLike

LikeLike

And yes! Not being numb is definitely better! Better to pay close attention, as well as to just still be alive and in the game!

LikeLike

LikeLike

Definition: Beneficence is action that is done for the benefit of others. Beneficent actions can be taken to help prevent or remove harms or to simply improve the situation of others.

Clinical Applications: Physicians are expected to refrain from causing harm, but they also have an obligation to help their patients. Ethicists often distinguish between obligatory and ideal beneficence. Ideal beneficence comprises extreme acts of generosity or attempts to benefit others on all possible occasions. Physicians are not necessarily expected to live up to this broad definition of beneficence. However, the goal of medicine is to promote the welfare of patients, and physicians possess skills and knowledge that enable them to assist others. Due to the nature of the relationship between physicians and patients, doctors do have an obligation to:
1) prevent and remove harms, and
2) weigh and balance possible benefits against possible risks of an action. Beneficence can also include protecting and defending the rights of others, rescuing persons who are in danger, and helping individuals with disabilities.

Examples of beneficent actions: Resuscitating a drowning victim, providing vaccinations for the general population, encouraging a patient to quit smoking and start an exercise program, talking to the community about STD prevention.

Non-maleficence:

Definition: Non-maleficence means to “do no harm.” Physicians must refrain from providing ineffective treatments or acting with malice toward patients. This principle, however, offers little useful guidance to physicians since many beneficial therapies also have serious risks. The pertinent ethical issue is whether the benefits outweigh the burdens.

Clinical Applications: Physicians should not provide ineffective treatments to patients as these offer risk with no possibility of benefit and thus have a chance of harming patients. In addition, physicians must not do anything that would purposely harm patients without the action being balanced by proportional benefit. Because many medications, procedures, and interventions cause harm in addition to benefit, the principle of non-maleficence provides little concrete guidance in the care of patients. Where this principle is most helpful is when it is balanced against beneficence. In this context non-maleficence posits that the risks of treatment (harm) must be understood in light of the potential benefits. Ultimately, the patient must decide whether the potential benefits outweigh the potential harms.

Examples of non-maleficent actions: Stopping a medication that is shown to be harmful, refusing to provide a treatment that has not been shown to be effective.

Balancing Beneficence and Non-maleficence:

One of the most common ethical dilemmas arises in the balancing of beneficence and non-maleficence. This balance is the one between the benefits and risks of treatment and plays a role in nearly every medical decision such as whether to order a particular test, medication, procedure, operation or treatment. By providing informed consent, physicians give patients the information necessary to understand the scope and nature of the potential risks and benefits in order to make a decision. Ultimately it is the patient who assigns weight to the risks and benefits. Nonetheless, the potential benefits of any intervention must outweigh the risks in order for the action to be ethical.

From:
http://missinglink.ucsf.edu/lm/ethics/Content%20Pages/fast_fact_bene_nonmal.htm
© 2008 by the Regents, University of California

LikeLike

LikeLike

Seriously, to everyone being prescribed to take this drug:

ASK YOUR DOCTOR IF HE OR SHE WOULD TAKE THIS DRUG UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES?!!!!

Not that they could depend on an honest reply….

I guess I still haven’t heard of enough of this level of horrifying behavior by marketing of anything at all to be numb. For our government, our physicians, or our drug companies to be willing to risk our lives absolutely horrifies me. I am stunned.

How can anyone participating in this go to sleep at night? Do they say prayers before they go to sleep, begging for forgiveness for what they’ve done AND plan to continue to do?

Carolyn, considering how cooperative our government is in promoting new drugs, see if they’ll give you the right to have access to every email address in the U.S. so you can send this Nag out as a warning to all. Just tell them you have an “informational drug” which is sure to save lives and increase performance in sports and in anemia-causing illnesses. I doubt you’ll even have to justify your claim, even being an honest one, but be ready to give a kickback to the FDA or anyone else who might argue with you. Everyone else seems to be susceptible to those.

To all who are considering taking Procrit, legally or not:

You can’t win your return to health nor an Olympic Gold Medal if you’re dead, right?

By the way, Carolyn, any studies out on how to know if a doctor practices ethical medicine or not?

LikeLike

LikeLike

***Physicians are still prescribing Procrit. ***
Just like Yaz is continued to be sold.

***“Using PROCRIT can lead to death or other serious side effects.”***

What? What’s more serious than death? (insert black humor emoticon here)

LikeLike