Withholding diagnostic and prognostic information from patients in Pakistan: ethical and cultural perspectives
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dear Editor, I am writing to highlight a critical and often overlooked issue in our medical practice: withholding diagnostic and prognostic information from patients in favour of communicating primarily with family members. This practice raises significant ethical and legal concerns that merit urgent discussion. A significant portion of Pakistan's population—about 61%—resides in rural areas, where the literacy rate is approximately 59% [2,3]. Additionally, socio-economic factors play a major role, with over 37% of the population living below the poverty line [1]. Research indicates that patients with low literacy levels experience poorer health outcomes, including lower health knowledge, worse disease markers, higher morbidity, poorer general health status, and increased use of health resources. These patients are generally 1.5 to 3 times more likely to experience adverse health outcomes [4]. Consequently, medical decisions and treatment plans are frequently deferred to the household's primary earner rather than the patient, undermining the patient's autonomy. In countries such as the United States and Canada, patient autonomy is a fundamental principle of medical practice. Patients have the right to be fully informed about their health conditions and make care decisions. In his seminal work The Silent World of Doctor and Patient, bioethicists like Jay Katz argued that excluding patients from decision-making processes is a profound affront to their dignity and autonomy. Similarly, Beauchamp and colleagues, in Principles of Biomedical Ethics, stress the importance of respecting patient autonomy alongside beneficence and nonmaleficence. A recent cohort study concluded that when medical decision-making was conducted through shared decision-making, daily controller therapy adherence in patients with asthma was 84%, a considerable achievement [5]. Respecting patient autonomy does not mean indiscriminately sharing all information but fostering a trust-based relationship where the patient’s preferences for receiving information and involvement in clinical decisions are carefully considered. Healthcare providers must prioritize effective communication and uphold ethical standards by ensuring that patients are fully informed about their diagnoses and involved in their treatment plans. Educational institutions and healthcare organizations should emphasise the importance of these skills in medical training and continuing education programmes. I urge my fellow healthcare professionals to commit to promoting patient autonomy and transparency, ensuring that our patients are respected and their rights upheld in all aspects of their care.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,222 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».