Competing Benefits and Competing Hazards: The Benefit to Harm Balance in Individual Patients in Rational Therapeutics.

For any therapeutic intervention in an individual, there is a balance between the potential benefits and the possible harms. The extent to which the benefits are desirable in a given condition depends on the efficacy of the intervention, the chance of obtaining it and the seriousness and intensity of the condition. The extent to which the harms are undesirable depends on the nature of the hazard that can lead to harm, the chance that the harm will occur and its seriousness and intensity. Rational therapeutic decisions require clinicians to consider competing courses of action, with potential benefits of different desirability and potential harms of different undesirability. They also have a duty to explain to the patient, for the contemplated interventions, both the possible benefits and the potential harms that the patient may consider significant. In an individual patient, it is necessary to consider (a) the probabilities of benefit from both intervention and non-intervention and (b) the probabilities of harm from both intervention and non-intervention. However, there are several potential problems. Here, we consider how failure to distinguish maximum benefits from probable benefits, or hazards (potential harms) from probable harms, and failure to consider all the competing probabilities may lead to imperfect therapeutic decisions. We also briefly discuss methods to assess the benefit to harm balance.

When I use a word . . . Medical blue plaques-the Peckham Experiment.

The Pioneer Health Centre in Peckham, also known as the Peckham Centre, running what became known at the Peckham Experiment, was founded in 1926 by two doctors, Innes Pearse (1889-1978) and her colleague George Scott Williamson (1884-1953). It closed down in 1929 and reopened in 1935 in new purpose-built premises. Families paid a shilling a week for membership, which gave them free medical consultations of various sorts and access to a wide variety of recreations, but no medical treatment. The purpose was to observe how their health progressed and to discover what factors were involved in good health and wellbeing. After closing down again during World War II the centre reopened, but was forced to close again in 1950, this time for good, because of lack of funds, due to a complex range of factors. In a 1938 publication, the founders stressed that health and wellbeing were not synonymous; health, they wrote, operates with a cumulative deposit account and wellbeing on a diminishing current account.Two blue plaques commemorate the Pioneer Health Centre: an English Heritage blue plaque at 142 Queen's Road, Peckham, London SE15, the site of the centre's original building, and a plaque put up by the London Borough of Southwark at the site of the second building, now converted to a block of flats, and situated round the corner from the Queen's Road premises, in Frobisher Place, St Mary's Road, Peckham.

When I use a word . . . Medicines regulation-diethylene glycol.

In 1937, when diethylene glycol was used as a solvent in the preparation of a medicinal product, an elixir of sulfanilamide, resulting in deaths, public outcry hastened the promulgation of an act that had been in preparation in the USA for several years, but which had met with opposition from pharmaceutical companies. The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, as it was known, gave greater powers to the then recently formed Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in regulating the contents of medicinal formulations. Nevertheless, although similar regulatory systems have since been established around the world, episodes of poisoning with diethylene glycol in pharmaceutical formulations, whether deliberately included adulteration or as a contaminant, continue to be reported, generally in developing countries, usually affecting children, and often causing deaths.