Subject(s)
Decision Making , Judaism , Twins, Conjoined/surgery , Fatal Outcome , Female , Humans , Infant, NewbornABSTRACT
To determine whether corticosteroids are efficacious in severe septic shock, we conducted a prospective study of 59 patients randomly assigned to a methylprednisolone, dexamethasone, or control group. Patients were treated 17.5 +/- 5.4 hours (mean +/- S.E.M.) after the onset of shock, and 55 patients required vasopressor agents. Early in the hospital course, reversal of shock was more likely in patients who received corticosteroids than in those who did not. Four (19 per cent) of 21 methylprednisolone-treated, 7 (32 per cent) of 22 dexamethasone-treated, and none of 16 control patients had reversal of shock 24 hours after drug administration (corticosteroid groups vs. control group, P less than 0.05). Patients treated with corticosteroids within four hours after the onset of shock had a higher incidence of shock reversal (P less than 0.05). At 133 hours after drug administration, 17 (40 per cent) of 43 corticosteroid-treated patients had died, and 11 (69 per cent) of 16 control patients had died (P less than 0.05). However, these differences in reversal of shock and survival disappeared later in the course. Overall, 16 (76 per cent) of 21 patients receiving methylprednisolone, 17 (77 per cent) of 22 patients receiving dexamethasone, and 11 (69 per cent) of 16 controls in the hospital died. We conclude that corticosteroids do not improve the overall survival of patients with severe, late septic shock but may be helpful early in the course and in certain subgroups of patients.
Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/administration & dosage , Shock, Septic/drug therapy , Adolescent , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/adverse effects , Adult , Aged , Clinical Trials as Topic , Dexamethasone/administration & dosage , Female , Hemodynamics , Humans , Male , Methylprednisolone/administration & dosage , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Shock, Septic/mortality , Shock, Septic/physiopathologySubject(s)
Congenital Abnormalities , Infant, Newborn , Judaism , Religion and Medicine , Withholding Treatment , Disclosure , Ethicists , Euthanasia , Humans , Informed Consent , Parental Consent , Patient Rights , Patient Selection , Personhood , Value of LifeSubject(s)
Ethics, Medical , Fertilization in Vitro , Judaism , Religion and Medicine , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Risk Assessment , Spermatozoa , Value of LifeSubject(s)
Brain Death , Ethics, Medical , Terminal Care , Transplantation, Homologous , Ethics , Humans , Life Support Care , Patient AdvocacyABSTRACT
Use of neurologic criteria to pronounce death, although accepted by many, has caused controversy among physicians, lawyers, legislators, philosophers, and theologians. The present work attempts to resolve this by accomplishing four objectives. (1) It summarizes scientific information that establishes the ability to determine the state of brain death with certainty on the basis of presently available clinical and laboratory criteria. (2) It shows that the concept of brain death is in accord with secular philosophy and the three major Western religions. (3) It documents the need for legislative recognition that death may be pronounced on the basis of neurologic criteria. (4) It reviews the present status of judicial and statutory law relating to the determination of death in the United States.
Subject(s)
Brain Death , Ethics , Legislation, Medical , Electroencephalography , Ethics, Medical , Humans , Philosophy, Medical , Protestantism , Religion and Medicine , United StatesSubject(s)
Brain Death , Legislation, Medical , Humans , Jurisprudence , Law Enforcement , United StatesABSTRACT
The evaluation and management of infertility problems in Orthodox Jewish couples can be made difficult because of restrictions which may be imposed by religious rules. The origins of the religious laws governing semen collection, diagnostic and therapeutic genital surgery, menstruation, and homologous and donor insemination are reviewed. Contemporary rabbinic authorities are quoted; their opinions may serve as guidelines for the patient and urologist dealing with infertility problems.
Subject(s)
Infertility, Male , Jews , Religion and Medicine , Female , Genitalia, Female/surgery , Humans , Infertility, Male/therapy , Insemination, Artificial, Heterologous , Insemination, Artificial, Homologous , Male , Menstruation , SemenABSTRACT
The evaluation and management of infertility problems in Orthodox Jewish couples can be made difficult because of restrictions which may be imposed by religious rules. The origins of the religious laws governing problems such as semen collection, diagnostic and therapeutic genital surgery, menstruation, and homologous and donor insemination are reviewed. Contemporary Rabbinic authorities are quoted; their opinions may serve as guidelines for the patient and physician dealing with infertility problems.
